
    LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant, v. DADELAND COVE SECTION ONE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a Florida Non-Profit Corporation formerly known as Dadeland Cove Homeowners Association, Inc., Dadeland Cove Section Two Homeowners Association, a Florida Non-Profit Corporation, Inc., Defendants-Appellees, Raquel Nobo-Alvarez, Defendant-Counter Claimant-Counter Defendant-Appellee, Gary Gross, John Does 1-600, Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellees, Susana Delamza Wolffe, Vinivcius Wolffe, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-12265
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Oct. 6, 2008.
    Selena Teresa Donaldson, John R. Catizone, Litchfield Cavo, LLP, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant.
    Patrick S. Montoya, Colson Hicks Eidson, Coral Gables, FL, for Defendant Counter Claimant-Counter Defendant-Appellee/Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellees.
    Maureen Elizabeth LeFebvre, Ervin A. Gonzalez, Colson Hicks Eidson, Coral Gables, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

On October 11, 2007, 2007 WL 2979828, the district court, on cross-motions for summary judgment, found that the insuranee 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.  