UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT SHANNON D. OGLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 99-2143 UNITED STATES LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

SHANNON D. OGLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 99-2144 HARTFORD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA-99-1370-S, CA-99-1395-S) Submitted: February 29, 2000 Decided: March 15, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Clifford R. Bridgford, Frederick, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas G.

Young, III, YOUNG & VALKENET, L.L.C., Baltimore, Maryland; Nell B. Strachan, VENABLE, BAETJER AND HOWARD, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Shannon Ogle appeals the district court's orders denying her motions for summary judgment, granting summary judgment to Hart- ford Life Insurance Company (Hartford), granting summary judgment to United States Life Insurance Company (U.S. Life), and denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion for reconsideration in her ERISA actions, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461 (1994). Ogle claims that the district court erred in finding as a matter of law that Hartford's claims examiner did not abuse its discretion in determining that her decedent was intoxi- cated at the time of his death and that his intoxication caused the motorcycle wreck in which he sustained his fatal injuries. We have reviewed the record and find that Hartford's decision was "the result of a deliberate, principled reasoning process" and that it was "sup- ported by substantial evidence." Ellis v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 126 F.3d 228, 232 (4th Cir. 1997).

Ogle also claims that the district court erred when it found as a matter of law that U.S. Life properly denied the accidental death claim that she brought on behalf of her decedent based upon its poli- cy's intoxication exclusion. We find that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of U.S. Life. See Baker v. Provi- dent Life & Accident Ins. Co., 171 F.3d 939, 942 (4th Cir. 1999); see also Weaver v. Phoenix Home Life Ins. Mut. Ins. Co. , 990 F.2d 154, 157 (4th Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, we affirm the orders of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade- quately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED