TMS Envirocon, Incorporated v. BB&T Insurance Services, Incor, No. 10-1846 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1846 TMS ENVIROCON, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BB&T INSURANCE Paul, SERVICES, INCORPORATED, d/b/a DeJarnett & Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00598-RAJ-DEM) Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 25, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John S. Wilson, WILSON & MCINTYRE, PLLC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. W.F. Drewry Gallalee, Harold E. Johnson, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: TMS Envirocon, Inc., judgment order granting summary Inc., on breach TMS of appeals to contract the BB&T district Insurance claim. TMS court s Services, claimed that because BB&T Insurance Services failed to timely report a TMS claim to its insurer, as it was contractually obligated to do, TMS lost insurance coverage for the claim. Because we have diversity jurisdiction in this case, we apply the choice of law rules of the forum state in this case Virginia. CACI Int l, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 566 F.3d 150, 154, 155 (4th Cir. 2009). elements of a breach of contract action In Virginia [t]he are (1) a legally enforceable obligation of a defendant to a plaintiff; (2) the defendant s violation or breach of that obligation; and (3) injury or damage to the plaintiff caused by the breach of obligation. Filak v. George, 594 S.E.2d 610, 614 (Va. 2004) (citations omitted). After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not err in holding that TMS failed to prove causation because the insurer denied coverage of the claim also on the alternative ground that the policy did not provide coverage for the claim. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 2 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.
