Watts Trucking Service, Inc. v. CM Vantage Specialty Insurance Company

Mnursday, 1/ July, 24UL5 □□□□□ Clerk, U.S. District Court, IL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION WATTS TRUCKING SERVICE, INC., ) Plaintiff, ) Vv. Case No. 24-cv-3210 CM VANTAGE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ) Defendant. ) ORDER COLLEEN R. LAWLESS, United States District Judge: Before the Court is U.S. Magistrate Judge Doug Quivey’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 28) under Rule 72(a) recommending that Defendant CM Vantage Specialty Insurance Company’s Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment as to Scope of Appraisal be granted and a declaratory judgment as to the scope of appraisal be entered on the counterclaim. Judge Quivey further recommends Plaintiff Watts Trucking Service Inc.’s Motion to Compel Appraisal be granted. For the reasons that follow, the Court Adopts the Report and Recommendation.

A party may file written objections to the report and recommendation within 14 days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This Court reviews de novo “any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any wnobjected portions of the report and recommendation are reviewed for clear error. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). “The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further ‘Page 1 of 3 evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Because neither party has filed objections, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation for clear error.

On June 6, 2025, Judge Quivey entered an Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment as to Scope of Appraisal (Doc. 12) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Appraisal (Doc. 15). The Order essentially rules on the Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment by making specific findings as to five policy exclusions and how they applied or did not apply to the requested appraisal. The parties were granted seven days following the filing of the Answer to object to the entry of a Report and Recommendation recommending a declaratory judgment be entered on the Counterclaim. On June 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed its Answer (Doc. 27) to Defendant's Counterclaim. Neither party objected to the magistrate judge’s entry of a Report and Recommendation. Judge Quivey’s Report and Recommendation was entered on June 30, 2025.

Upon carefully reviewing the Report and Recommendation and the entire record, the Court concludes that the magistrate judge committed no error. The Court adopts as its own the findings and analysis of Judge Quivey in his June 6, 2025 Order and contained in the Report and Recommendation. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 28) and GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Appraisal (Doc.

15). The Court further enters a Declaratory Judgment as to the Scope of Appraisal on Defendant’s Counterclaim and finds that the appraisal shall proceed in accordance with Page 2 of 3 the Order (Doc. 25) and Report and Recommendation (Doc. 28) for the reasons stated therein.

ENTER: July 17, 2025 OL R. LAWLESS ITED SLATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 3 of 3 3 □ □