UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1606
CAREN M. CARNEY; JANE O’NEILL,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
ASSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA-
04-3434-1-JFM)
Argued: March 16, 2006 Decided: April 19, 2006
Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and Cameron McGowan
CURRIE, United States District Judge for the District of South
Carolina, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: C. Edward Hartman, III, HARTMAN & EGELI, Annapolis,
Maryland, for Appellants. George Edwin Reede, Jr., NILES, BARTON
& WILMER, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:
Kathleen L. H. Petty, NILES, BARTON & WILMER, L.L.P., Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Caren M. Carney and Jane O’Neill appeal the order of the
district court granting Appellee’s motion for summary judgment in
this challenge to the denial of coverage for damage to wood siding
under a builder’s risk insurance policy. Specifically, Carney and
O’Neill argue that the district court erred in concluding that the
damage at issue was excluded from coverage based on an exclusion
for “loss caused by or resulting from . . . [f]aulty, inadequate
or defective . . . workmanship.” They also appeal the denial of
their motion to compel discovery as moot.
This court reviews an award of summary judgment de novo.
Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th
Cir. 1988). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no
genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). The evidence is viewed in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). Rulings on
discovery matters, by contrast, are reviewed for an abuse of
discretion. Carefirst of Md., Inc., v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs.,
Inc., 334 F.3d 390, 396 (4th Cir. 2003).
With these standards in mind, we affirm both the dispositive
and discovery rulings on the reasoning of the district court.
Carney v. Assurance Company of America, No. 1:04-cv-3434-JFM (D.
3
Md. April 19, 2005). In reaching the first conclusion we find, as
did the district court, that the policy unambiguously excludes
coverage for the damage at issue because it was caused by or
resulted from faulty workmanship in the failure to properly stain
and protect the wood. We further conclude that Appellants failed
to proffer evidence which would support a finding that the damage
fell within the exception to this exclusion for losses caused by an
intervening “Covered Cause of Loss.”
Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the district
court’s denial of the motion to compel discovery as moot. In light
of the lack of ambiguity in the policy as applied to the facts of
this case, the discovery sought could not have led to any different
result.
AFFIRMED
4