American Modern Home Insurance Company v. Duffy, No. 2:2013cv00001 - Document 27 (D. Mont. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 26 Findings and Recommendations; granting 17 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Findings and Recommendations re 26 Findings and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 1/29/2014. (ELL, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
American Modern Home Insurance Company v. Duffy Doc. 27 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BUTTE DIVISION CV 13-01-BU-DLC AMERICAN MODERN HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation, ORDER Plaintiff, FILED vs. JAN 29 21M DOLAN DUFFY, a citizen of Montana, Clerk, u.s District Court District Of Montana Missoula Defendant. United States Magistrate Judge Carolyn S. Ostby entered her Findings and Recommendation on January 13,2014, recommending that Plaintiffs motion for summary judgement be granted and that the Court enter judgment in Plaintiff s favor. Defendant did not timely object to the Findings and Recommendation, and so has waived the right to de novo review of the record. 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1). This Court will review the Findings and Recommendation for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Clear error exists if the Court is left with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000). 1 Dockets.Justia.com There is no clear error in Judge Ostby's Findings and Recommendation. Plaintiff American Modern Home Insurance Company has paid to Duffy the limits of all applicable insurance available under Policy Number N077 032685 004551301725 T60 ("the Policy"). The Policy's Animal Liability endorsement clearly, conspicuously, and unambiguously limits coverage to $10,000 for bodily injury caused by an insured's animal. The special limit for Animal Liability does not violate public policy and the limitation is not beyond an insured's reasonable expectations. Accordingly, the limit is enforceable and applicable to Duffy's claim. Duffy's contentions to the contrary are without merit. Plaintiff has paid all applicable insurance coverage limits to Duffy under the Policy and Duffy has no further right or interest under this Policy. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Judge Ostby's Findings and Recommendation (Doc. 26) are ADOPTED IN FULL. Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 17) is GRANTED. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT and this case is CLOSED. Dated this ~ 2'f day of January 201 Dana L. Christensen, Chief J dge United States District Court 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
