Thomas Rogers, III v. Stewart Title Guaranty Company

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:07-cv-03998-CWH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998758235].. [11-1395]

Appeal: 11-1395

Document: 23

Date Filed: 01/05/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1395

THOMAS D. ROGERS, III; VICTORIA A. ROGERS,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (2:07-cv-03998-CWH)

Submitted:

December 20, 2011

Decided:

January 5, 2012

Before MOTZ, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

R. Hawthorne Barrett, Thomas C. Salane, TURNER PADGET GRAHAM &
LANEY, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Christy
Ford Allen, John A. Massalon, WILLS MASSALON & ALLEN, LLC,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-1395

Document: 23

Date Filed: 01/05/2012

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Stewart

Title

Guaranty

Company

(“Stewart

Title”)

appeals the district court’s order in a declaratory judgment
action.
Stewart
Rogers

After a bench trial, the district court found that
Title
for

was

one

required

million

to

indemnify

dollars

under

Thomas

the

insurance policy the Rogerses had purchased.
This

court

“review[s]

a

and

terms

Victoria

of

a

title

a

bench

We affirm.

judgment

following

trial under a mixed standard of review – factual findings may be
reversed only if clearly erroneous, while conclusions of law,
including contract construction, are examined de novo.”

Roanoke

Cement Co., L.L.C. v. Falk Corp., 413 F.3d 431, 433 (4th Cir.
2005) (citations omitted).

“[W]hen a district court’s factual

finding in a bench trial is based on assessments of witness
credibility, such finding is deserving of the highest degree of
appellate deference.”

Evergreen Int’l v. Norfolk Dredging Co.,

531 F.3d 302, 308 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
We conclude that the district court did not err in
finding that the title risk created by the publicly dedicated
graveyard was covered by the Rogerses’ title insurance policy.
Further, the district court did not err in crediting testimony
establishing
limit.

that

the

Rogerses’

damages

exceeded

the

policy

Accordingly, we affirm the declaratory judgment of the
2

Appeal: 11-1395

Document: 23

district
facts

court.

and

materials

Date Filed: 01/05/2012

legal
before

We

dispense

with

Page: 3 of 3

oral

argument

contentions

are

adequately

the

and

argument

court

because

presented

would

not

the

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3