UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1216
JAMES R. BAILES,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
ERIE INSURANCE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (3:09-cv-00146)
Submitted: June 14, 2011 Decided: June 22, 2011
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Todd A. Biddle, Melissa Eakle Leasure, BAILES, CRAIG & YON,
PLLC, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellant. Matthew J.
Perry, LAMP, O’DELL, BARTRAM, LEVY, TRAUTWEIN & PERRY, P.L.L.C.,
Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James R. Bailes appeals the district court’s orders
granting summary judgment for Erie Insurance Property and
Casualty Company (“Erie”) in Bailes’ declaratory judgment action
seeking coverage on two insurance contracts. Bailes sought to
determine whether policies issued by Erie provided coverage
against claims arising from an accidental death as well as
injuries to others in a rental property owned by Bailes and his
brother. Bailes also appeals the district court’s denial of his
subsequent motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error.
We review an award of summary judgment de novo. See
PCS Phosphate Co. v. Norfolk S. Corp., 559 F.3d 212, 217 (4th
Cir. 2009). Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a); see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48
(1986). In determining whether the moving party has shown that
there is no genuine issue of material fact, we must assess the
factual evidence and all inferences to be drawn therefrom in the
light most favorable to the non-moving party. Robinson v.
Clipse, 602 F.3d 605, 607 (4th Cir. 2010). We review the denial
of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment
2
for abuse of discretion. Sloas v. CSX Transp., Inc., 616 F.3d
380, 388 (4th Cir. 2010).
After reviewing the record, we agree with the district
court that the express terms of the Ultracover Home Protector
insurance policy and the Personal Catastrophe Liability
Endorsement exclude coverage for the claims asserted against
Bailes that give rise to this litigation. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s orders. 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
3