James Bailes v. Erie Insurance Property, No. 10-1216 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1216 JAMES R. BAILES, Plaintiff Appellant, v. ERIE INSURANCE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:09-cv-00146) Submitted: June 14, 2011 Decided: June 22, 2011 Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Todd A. Biddle, Melissa Eakle Leasure, BAILES, CRAIG & YON, PLLC, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellant. Matthew J. Perry, LAMP, O DELL, BARTRAM, LEVY, TRAUTWEIN & PERRY, P.L.L.C., Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James R. Bailes appeals the district court s orders granting summary judgment for Erie Insurance Property and Casualty Company ( Erie ) in Bailes declaratory judgment action seeking coverage on two insurance contracts. determine against whether claims policies arising issued from an by Erie accidental Bailes sought to provided coverage death well as as injuries to others in a rental property owned by Bailes and his brother. Bailes also appeals the district court s denial of his subsequent motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We review an award of summary judgment de novo. See PCS Phosphate Co. v. Norfolk S. Corp., 559 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2009). genuine Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no dispute as to any material fact and entitled to judgment as a matter of law. the movant is Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). In determining whether the moving party has shown that there is no genuine issue of material fact, we must assess the factual evidence and all inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving Clipse, 602 F.3d 605, 607 (4th Cir. 2010). party. Robinson v. We review the denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment 2 for abuse of discretion. Sloas v. CSX Transp., Inc., 616 F.3d 380, 388 (4th Cir. 2010). After reviewing the record, we agree with the district court that the express terms of the Ultracover Home Protector insurance policy Endorsement Bailes that affirm the and exclude give coverage rise district the to Personal for this court s the Catastrophe claims litigation. orders. We Liability asserted against Accordingly, dispense with we oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 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.
