Pine Top Receivables of Ill., Inc. v. Banco de Seguros del Estado, No. 12 C 6357, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116181 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 30, 2016).

An Illinois federal court denied a cedent’s motion to vacate judgment entered against it on statute of limitations grounds and to file a second amended complaint. See the September 2016 Squire Patton Boggs Reinsurance Newsletter for a summary of the earlier decision. Here, the cedent wanted to fix its complaint to add a missing element of its account stated theory. 

In denying the motion, the court noted that this type of motion is only allowed where a court had misunderstood a party, made a decision outside of the issues presented, misapprehended an issue, where a significant law change had occurred or where significant new facts have come to light. Finding none of these factors, the court denied the motion. The court also commented that it would have been unduly prejudicial to the reinsurer to allow yet another amended complaint four years after the action had been commenced.