UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1600
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
BATTERY WEALTH, INCORPORATED; WAYNE CASSADAY,
Defendants,
MALCOLM CROSLAND; MEGGETT B. LAVIN; THOMAS S. WHITE;
CAROLYN WHITE; MARILYN POWELL; KAREN PHAEHN; RON WISEMAN;
ANN WISEMAN; CHARLES SCHWAB & COMPANY, INCORPORATED,
Intervenors/Defendants,
DAVID T. PEARLMAN; JANET PEARLMAN,
Intervenors,
and
CAROL M. GRAF, Individually and as assignee of T Alexander
Beard; CHARLES W. WOOLEN; PAMELA WOOLEN,
Intervenors/Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. William O. Bertelsman, Senior
District Judge, sitting by designation. (2:09-cv-00605-WOB)
Submitted: June 26, 2012 Decided: August 2, 2012
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul E. Tinkler, LAW OFFICE OF PAUL E. TINKLER, Charleston,
South Carolina; T. Alexandrer Beard, BEARD LAW OFFICES, Mt.
Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellants. Richard A. Simpson,
Kimberly A. Ashmore, WILEY REIN, LLP, Washington, D.C.,;
Christopher R. Carroll, Heather E. Simpson, CARROLL, MCNULTY &
KULL, LLC, Basking Ridge, New Jersey, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Carol M. Graf, Charles W. Woolen, and Pamela Woolen
appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment for
Continental on its complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that
no coverage existed under two professional services liability
insurance policies it issued to Battery Wealth, Inc., for claims
made by the Appellants and others. We have thoroughly reviewed
the district court’s order and conclude that the court did not
err in concluding that coverage was barred under the policies
due to the prior knowledge condition precedent. See Bryan Bros.
Inc. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 660 F.3d 827 (4th Cir. 2011). *
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
*
We note that the Appellants in their opening brief
erroneously stated that this case was an unpublished opinion of
this court. Although the Appellee pointed to this error in its
response brief, the Appellants failed to correct their
misstatement in the reply brief or otherwise inform the court of
this mistake.
3