Jeffries v. Aetna Casualty

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Jeffries v. Aetna Casualty

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-2310

CHARLES J. JEFFRIES, a resident of Durham County, North Carolina; JANA L. CAMALIER, Administratrix, individually and as Adminis- tratrix CTA of the Estate of Caleb Willard Camalier, III,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

THE AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, a corporation incorporated in the State of Con- necticut; TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COM- PANY, a corporation incorporated in the State of Connecticut,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-98-608-5-F)

Submitted: March 28, 2000 Decided: April 12, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David M. Duke, Tina M. Lloyd, YOUNG, MOORE & HENDERSON, P.A., Raleigh, North Carolina; Gary S. Parsons, Patricia P. Kerner, BAILEY & DIXON, L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellants. Richard T. Rice, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE, & RICE, P.L.L.C., Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Mark A. Davis, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, P.L.L.C., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

The Appellants, Charles J. Jeffries and Jana L. Camalier, ap-

peal the district court’s order granting summary judgment for The

Aetna Casualty and Surety Company and Travelers Casualty and Surety

Company in the Appellants’ action seeking a declaration of coverage

under an insurance policy. We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. According-

ly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Jeffries

v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., No. CA-98-608-5-F (E.D.N.C. Aug.

25, 1999). We dispense with 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

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished