Court Opinion

ID: 66440
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-26 06:10:22+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:54.343168
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
 

  On October 11, 2007, 2007 WL 2979828, the district court, on cross-motions for summary judgment, found that the insur
   
   *362
   
  anee policy at issue provided the coverage for the insured Association’s breaches of fiduciary duty and that exclusion “N” did not apply and granted the Association summary judgment. When Lumbermens refused to pay the policy limits, the Association, on October 31, 2001, moved the court to reopen the case and enforce the parties’ settlement agreement. On November 2, 2007, Lumbermens moved the court pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) “for relief from its October 11, 2007 order denying Lumbermens’s motion for summary judgment and granting [Association’s] motion for summary judgment.” The court treated the motion as having been filed under Rule 60(b)(1) and denied it in an order entered on March 27, 2008, 2008 WL 879021. Lumbermens now appeals that order.
 

  We find no error in the court’s application of the law in its March 27 order. We therefore concluded that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lumbermens’s Rule 60(b)(1) motion.
 

  AFFIRMED.