Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Unitrin Auto and Home Insurance v. Bonnie Siarris, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling in a declaratory judgment case between an insurance company and a policyholder. The district court granted the insurance company's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied the policyholder's motion. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's rulings for the reasons stated in its opinion. The appeals court decided the case without oral arguments because the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-09-09 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-1227

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling in a declaratory judgment case between an insurance company and a policyholder. The district court granted the insurance company's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied the policyholder's motion. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's rulings for the reasons stated in its opinion. The appeals court decided the case without oral arguments because the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    7 views2 pages

    Unitrin Auto and Home Insurance v. Bonnie Siarris, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling in a declaratory judgment case between an insurance company and a policyholder. The district court granted the insurance company's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied the policyholder's motion. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's rulings for the reasons stated in its opinion. The appeals court decided the case without oral arguments because the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 15-1227

    UNITRIN AUTO AND HOME INSURANCE COMPANY,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    BONNIE SIARRIS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
    Graham C. Mullen,
    Senior District Judge. (3:14-cv-00050-GCM)

    Submitted:

    August 27, 2015

    Decided:

    September 9, 2015

    Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Theodore B. Smyth, CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP, Raleigh,


    North Carolina, for Appellant.
    Jeffrey B. Kuykendal, MCANGUS,
    GOUDELOCK & COURIE, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Bonnie Siarris appeals the district courts order granting
    Unitrin Auto and Home Insurance Companys motion for judgment on
    the pleadings and denying Siarris motion for judgment on the
    pleadings, which related to the parties claims for declaratory
    judgment under an insurance policy.
    and find no reversible error.

    We have reviewed the record

    Accordingly, we affirm for the

    reasons stated by the district court.

    Unitrin Auto & Home Ins.

    Co. v. Siarris, No. 3:14-cv-00050-GCM (W.D.N.C. Feb. 3, 2015).


    We

    dispense

    contentions

    with
    are

    oral

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the

    facts

    and

    the

    materials

    legal
    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like