Landmark American Insurance Company v. Innovative Insurance Solutions, LLC ( 2023 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA LANDMARK AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:22CV46 (Chief Judge Kleeh) INNOVATIVE INSURANCE SOLUTIONS LLC and EMPLOYERS INNOVATIVE NETWORK ACQUISITION LLC, Defendant. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 23] AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 12] On May 27, 2022, Plaintiff Landmark American Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in this action against Innovative Insurance Solutions, LLC, and Employers Innovative Network Acquisition LLC (together, “Defendants”). Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment [ECF No. 12], and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the local rules, the Court referred the motion to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Aloi (the “Magistrate Judge”) for consideration. The Magistrate Judge convened a hearing and on April 14, 2023, entered a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court grant the motion. The R&R informed the parties that they had fourteen (14) days - plus an additional three (3) days for mailing - from the date of service of the R&R to file “specific written objections, identifying the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis for such objection.” It further warned them that the “[f]ailure to file written objections . . . shall constitute a waiver of de novo review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit Court of Appeals.” Innovative Insurance Solutions, LLC, and Employers Innovative Network Acquisition LLC accepted service of the R&R on April 18, 2023. See ECF Nos. 24, 25. To date, no objections have been filed. When reviewing a magistrate judge’s R&R, the Court must review de novo only the portions to which an objection has been timely made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Otherwise, “the Court may adopt, without explanation, any of the magistrate judge’s recommendations” to which there are no objections. Dellarcirprete v. Gutierrez, 479 F. Supp. 2d 600, 603–04 (N.D.W. Va. 2007) (citing Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983)). Courts will uphold portions of a recommendation to which no objection has been made unless they are clearly erroneous. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). Because no party has objected, the Court is under no obligation to conduct a de novo review. Accordingly, the Court reviewed the R&R for clear error. Upon careful review, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS the R&R [ECF No. 23]. The motion for default judgment is GRANTED [ECF No. 12]. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter default judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. Plaintiff is not obligated to either indemnify or defend Defendants in the Underlying Action (Case No. CC-24-2020-C-136, in the Circuit Court of Marion County, West Virginia) because of the applicable policy exclusions. Plaintiff shall not be awarded costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and STRICKEN from the Court’s active docket. It is so ORDERED. The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties. DATED: May 8, 2023 Tom 8 Klut- THOMAS S. KLEEH, CHIEF JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA