Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance v. Caldwell Chevrolet, Inc., No. 13-1241 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1241 GRAPHIC ARTS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INSURANCE COMPANY; UTICA MUTUAL Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. CALDWELL CHEVROLET, Chevrolet, INC., d/b/a Fred Caldwell s Clover Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (0:11-cv-01255-MBS) Submitted: June 17, 2013 Decided: July 5, 2013 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Adam J. Neil, Wesley B. Sawyer, MURPHY GRANTLAND, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth S. Skilling, John A. Merrick, Robert F. Friedman, HARMAN, CLAYTOR, CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: In this diversity insurance coverage dispute, the district court issued a declaratory judgment finding the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify the insured. See Graphic Arts Mut. Ins. Co. v. Caldwell Chevrolet, Inc., No. 0:11-01255-MBS (D.S.C. Sept. 10, 2012). This The insured now appeals and we affirm. appeal grows out of a suit filed by a number of plaintiffs in state court against Caldwell Chevrolet, Inc. and other car dealers. engaged in a common administrative characterized Plaintiffs asserted that the dealers had fees the from fees practice of buyers. as collecting The dealers mandatory, illegal allegedly administrative reimbursement for actual costs to the dealer, rather than simply a way to inflate the price of a car. Caldwell sought a defense in the state action from its insurer, Graphic Arts, which agreed to defend under a reservation of rights. initiated this action, seeking a Graphic Arts then declaration that it had no obligation to Caldwell under the policy. The district court held that the policy issued by Graphic Arts did action. not provide coverage to Caldwell in the underlying The court reasoned that the endorsement for failing to comply with a [t]ruth in lending statute, or any statute that . . . regulates disclosures did not apply because the underlying complaint d[id] not allege violation of a lending or leasing disclosure statute. The 2 court also found that coverage does not exist because the policy expressly excludes coverage for intentional act [a]ny . . dishonest, . fraudulent, committed by the criminal insured and or the underlying complaint made allegations falling expressly within this exclusion. On October 9, 2012, within twenty-eight days of the district court s entry of judgment, Caldwell filed a Rule 59 motion asking the district court to alter or amend its judgment inter alia on the basis of newly discovered evidence. This new evidence was a March 2009 letter sent to Graphic Arts which assertedly triggered coverage. the motion, finding Caldwell had The district court denied failed to demonstrate due diligence to discover the alleged relevance of the March Letter to this litigation. See Boryan v. United States, 884 F.2d 767, 771 (4th Cir. 1989). Caldwell then noted this appeal raising the same arguments rejected by the district court. After careful review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the controlling law, we affirm on the basis of the careful opinions of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
