UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:21-cv-23214-DPG

WILSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

and

GREAT AMERICAN ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY and GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,

Intervenor Plaintiffs,

v.

CRESTVIEW TOWERS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC, et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres’ Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), [ECF No. 220], regarding Crestview Towers Condominium Association, Inc. and Marian Mori’s (collectively, “Defendants”): (1) Motion to Dismiss Great American Insurance Company’s (“Great American”) Complaint, [ECF No. 178]; and (2) Motion to Dismiss Great American Alliance Insurance Company’s (“GA Alliance”) Complaint, [ECF No. 179]. On August 17, 2022, the Court referred this case to Judge Torres, pursuant to

(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters and a report and recommendation on all dispositive matters. [ECF No. 153]. On June 27, 2023, Judge Torres issued his Report recommending that: (1) Defendants’ Motion as to Great American be granted in part and denied in part; and (2) Defendants’ Motion as to GA Alliance be granted. GA Alliance filed timely objections. [ECF No. 226]. However, no objections were filed by Great American. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which

objections are made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz,

(11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objections are made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C.,

(M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2006). Having reviewed the Report for clear error as to Great American’s claims and conducted a de novo of the record as to GA Alliance’s claims, the Court agrees with Judge Torres’ well- reasoned analysis and conclusion that Defendants’ Motion as to Great American’s claims should be granted in part and denied in part and that Defendants’ Motion as to GA Alliance’s claims

should be granted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres’ Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 220], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference. 2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Great American Insurance Company’s Complaint, [ECF No. 178], is DENIED as to Great American’s no duty to defend claim and is GRANTED without prejudice as to Great American’s no duty to indemnify claim. 3. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Great American Alliance Insurance Company’s Complaint, [ECF No. 179], is GRANTED without prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 18th day ugust, 2023.

DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DIST JUDGE