United Property & Casualty Ins v. James Moseley, No. 18-2301 (4th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2301 UNITED PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES MOSELEY; TABITHA MOSELEY, as Guardian Ad Litem for K.M. and Individually, Defendants - Appellants, and JEFFREY SURPRENANT; JILL SURPRENANT, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:17-cv-00096-FL) Submitted: December 19, 2019 Decided: January 15, 2020 Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bradley A. Coxe, HODGES COXE POTTER & PHILLIPS, LLP, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellants. George Lee Simpson, IV, SIMPSON LAW FIRM, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: James and Tabitha Moseley appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to United Property & Casualty Insurance Co. (“UPC”) and declaring that UPC was not obligated to provide coverage for their daughter’s injury from a bite by a Bull Mastiff owned by Jeffrey and Jill Surprenant. The Moseleys challenge the district court’s decision in three respects, asserting: (1) the Surprenants did not make a material misrepresentation in their application for homeowners insurance; (2) even if they did, UPC waived this misrepresentation through its agent; and (3) even if UPC did not waive this through its agent, it did so by consistently renewing the Surprenants’ insurance. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Surprenant., No. 7:17-cv00096-FL (E.D.N.C. Sept. 27, 2018). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.