UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
June 23, 2010
RICHARD BUCK AND ROSE BUCK, PLAINTIFFS,
LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael M. Mihm United States District Judge
On June 1, 2010, a Report & Recommendation was filed by Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore in the above captioned case. More than fourteen (14) days have elapsed since the filing of the Report & Recommendation, and no objections have been made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015 (7th Cir. 1988); and Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538, 539 (7th Cir. 1986). As the parties failed to present timely objections, any such objections have been waived. Id.
The relevant procedural history is sufficiently set forth in the comprehensive Report & Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Suffice it to say that Plaintiffs have brought this litigation alleging that Defendant breached the parties' insurance contracts and unreasonably delayed in resolving Plaintiffs' claims. The Court concurs with the recommendation that Plaintiffs' claim arising from the denial of flood coverage under the homeowner's policy be dismissed, and that the motion to dismiss be denied to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs' claim regarding coverage under the sump pump overflow endorsement to the homeowner's policy. The Court further concurs with the recommendation that Plaintiffs be given leave to file an Amended Complaint that comports with the Recommendation.
Accordingly, the Court now adopts the Report & Recommendation [#28] of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [#12] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs' claim arising from the denial of flood coverage under the homeowner's policy is DISMISSED. The motion is DENIED to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs' claim regarding coverage under the sump pump overflow endorsement to the homeowner's policy. Because the Court adopts the Report & Recommendation, and no objections to it have been filed, Plaintiffs' prematurely filed Amended Complaint [#29] is ALLOWED. This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
ENTERED this 23rd day of June, 2010.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.