Owners Insurance Company v. Warren Mechanical LLC, No. 18-2093 (4th Cir. 2019)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2093 OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WARREN MECHANICAL LLC, d/b/a Warren Mechanical, Defendant - Appellant. No. 18-2094 OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WARREN MECHANICAL LLC, d/b/a Warren Mechanical, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:16-cv-00669-DCN) Submitted: June 28, 2019 Decided: July 19, 2019 Before WILKINSON, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kelsey J. Brudvig, Peter H. Dworjanyn, COLLINS & LACY, PC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Morgan S. Templeton, Stephanie G. Brown, WALL TEMPLETON & HALDRUP, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Owners Insurance Company filed a declaratory judgment action seeking an order that an insurance policy issued to Warren Mechanical LLC was void ab initio. The district court dismissed the action without prejudice, noting that the same issue was before the state worker’s compensation commission. The court thereafter granted Warren Mechanical’s motion for recovery of costs but denied Warren Mechanical’s motion for attorney’s fees. Warren appeals the denial of its motion for attorney’s fees. Owners Insurance filed a cross-appeal, challenging the district court’s dismissal of the declaratory judgment action and the award of costs. We have reviewed the record on appeal and find no abuse of discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Owners Ins. Co. v. Warren Mech. LLC, No. 2:16-cv-00669DCN (D.S.C. Jan. 11, 2018 & Aug. 16, 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.