Dorothy Schrock v. Lancer Insurance Company

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:09-cv-00059-sgw-jgw. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998789953]. [11-1300]

Appeal: 11-1300

Document: 30

Date Filed: 02/16/2012

Page: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1300

DOROTHY A. SCHROCK; SCHROCK, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
and
LARRY R. SCHROCK,
Plaintiff,
v.
LANCER INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Wisconsin
HERTZ CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation,

Corporation;

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.
Samuel G. Wilson,
District Judge. (5:09-cv-00059-sgw-jgw)

Submitted:

January 30, 2012

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

SHEDD,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

and

February 16, 2012

HAMILTON,

Senior

Appeal: 11-1300

Document: 30

Date Filed: 02/16/2012

Page: 2 of 4

John J. Rasmussen, INSURANCE RECOVERY LAW GROUP, PLC, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellants.
William N. Watkins, SANDS ANDERSON
PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 11-1300

Document: 30

Date Filed: 02/16/2012

Page: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Dorothy
Incorporated,
judgment,

A.

appeal

entered

Schrock
from

after

(“Dorothy”)

the
a

district

bench

and

court’s

trial,

that

Schrock,
declaratory
a

business

automobile insurance policy issued by Lancer Insurance Company
(“Lancer”)
Dorothy

does

and

not

Larry

afford

Schrock

automobile collision.

underinsured
for

injuries

motorist
they

coverage

suffered

in

to
an

Appellants assert error in the district

court’s determination that Lancer was not required by Va. Code
Ann.

§ 38.2-2206

Dorothy.

(Supp.

2011)

to

afford

such

coverage

to

We affirm.
On appeal from a bench trial, we review the district

court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of
law de novo.

Roanoke Cement Co. v. Falk Corp., 413 F.3d 431,

433 (4th Cir. 2005).
the

district

required

by

court

After review of the record, we hold that
properly

§ 38.2-2206

to

concluded
afford

that

Lancer

uninsured

or

was

not

underinsured

motorist coverage to Dorothy, an insured of the second class
under Virginia law who was present in a vehicle not listed in
Lancer’s insurance policy.
S.E.2d

883,

886

(Va.

Stone v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 478

1996)

(stating

that

§ 38.2-2206

“only

requires, as to insureds of the second class, that uninsured
motorist

coverage

be

provided

to

those

who

are

in . . . the

motor vehicles listed in the policy, as opposed to ‘any’ vehicle
3

Appeal: 11-1300

Document: 30

Date Filed: 02/16/2012

Page: 4 of 4

to which the policy might apply”) (“Stone I”); see also Stone v.
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 105 F.3d 188, 189-90, 192 (4th Cir. 1997)
(applying Stone I and holding that employee was not entitled to
uninsured

or

underinsured

motorist

coverage

by

operation

of

§ 38.2-2206 for injury occurring while employee was operating
his personal vehicle in the scope of his employment because the
vehicle — although covered under the employer’s liability policy
when used in connection with the employer’s business — was not
listed in the policy).
Accordingly,
declaratory judgment.

we

affirm

the

district

court’s

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

4