Catherine W. Weber v. Life Insurance Company

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:11-cv-00032-NKM-BWC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998919469].. [12-1135]

Appeal: 12-1135

Doc: 30

Filed: 08/20/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1135

CATHERINE W. WEBER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, a subsidiary of
CIGNA Corporation,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Lynchburg.
Norman K. Moon, Senior
District Judge. (6:11-cv-00032-NKM-BWC)

Submitted:

July 30, 2012

Decided:

August 20, 2012

Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

G. Edgar Dawson, III, Chad A. Mooney, PETTY, LIVINGSTON, DAWSON
& RICHARDS, PC, Lynchburg, Virginia, for Appellant.
Zoe
Sanders,
William
C.
Wood,
Jr.,
NELSON
MULLINS
RILEY
&
SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-1135

Doc: 30

Filed: 08/20/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Catherine
holding that

she

W.
is

Weber

sought

entitled

to

a

declaratory

benefits

under

judgment

her

deceased

husband’s life insurance policies.

The district court granted

Appellee’s

the

appeals.

motion

for

judgment

on

pleadings,

and

Weber

For the following reasons, we affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s grant of a Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, applying
the same standard we apply to motions to dismiss for failure to
state a claim, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Independence News,

Inc. v. City of Charlotte, 568 F.3d 148, 154 (4th Cir. 2009).
We accept as true the factual allegations in the complaint and
draw

all

reasonable

inferences

in

favor

of

Weber.

Burbach

Broad. Co. of Del. v. Elkins Radio Corp., 278 F.3d 401, 405-06
(4th Cir. 2002).

In order to survive a motion for judgment on

the pleadings, the complaint must contain facts sufficient “to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level” and “state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”

Bell Atl.

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007).
Weber’s

husband,

Carl

(“Carl”),

was

killed

crash of a personal aircraft on which he was a passenger.

in

the

Prior

to his death, Carl participated through his employment in an
insurance plan that included accidental death and dismemberment
benefits issued by Life Insurance Company of North America, a
2

Appeal: 12-1135

Doc: 30

subsidiary
contain

Filed: 08/20/2012

of

CIGNA

eleven

Pg: 3 of 4

Corporation

“Common

(“Appellee”).

Exclusions”

that

bar

The

policies

the

award

of

benefits for loss resulting from a number of events, including
among

others,

influence.

suicide,

skydiving,

or

driving

under

the

At issue in this case is Common Exclusion 6(a),

which bars benefits for loss occurring during “(6) flight in,
boarding or alighting from an Aircraft or any craft designed to
fly above the Earth’s surface (a) except as a passenger on a
regularly

scheduled

commercial

airline.”

The

remainder

of

Common Exclusion 6, subsections (b) through (g), bars coverage
for

loss

occurring

during

a

variety

of

flight-related

activities.
On

appeal,

Weber

challenges

the

district

court’s

conclusion that Common Exclusion 6 is unambiguous and therefore
enforceable.
subsection

Weber claims that had Common Exclusion 6 ended at

6(a),

expect

that

only

covered

in

the

subsections

6(b)

“any

reasonable

commercial
event

of

through

person

airline

an

6(g)

would

passengers

accidental
are

understand
[would]

death,”

superfluous

and

but

when

be
that

read

in

conjunction with subsection 6(a), and therefore blur the issue
of what flight activity is actually excluded from coverage.
The

district

court

rejected

this

argument,

relying

upon Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co. v. Anderson, 166
F.2d 492 (4th Cir. 1948), in reaching its conclusion that each
3

Appeal: 12-1135

Doc: 30

Filed: 08/20/2012

Pg: 4 of 4

provision in the policies must be independently read.

As the

district court noted, the structure of Common Exclusion 6 is
similar to the challenged exclusions upheld in Provident Life.
We conclude that the district court correctly ruled
that each of the subsections contained in Common Exclusion 6
details a separate type of risk that is excluded from coverage.
Read on its own, Subsection 6(a) bars coverage for accidents
caused by or resulting from “flight in, boarding or alighting
from an Aircraft or any craft designed to fly above the Earth’s
surface

except

as

commercial airline.”
agree

with

the

a

passenger

on

a

regularly

scheduled

In addition to this general exclusion, we

district

court

that

Common

Exclusions

6(b)

through 6(g) articulate additional grounds of exclusion barring
coverage for certain activities otherwise arguably not covered
by

Common

Exclusion

Exclusion
6(a)

are

6(a).

Thus,

the

neither

conflicting

subsections
nor

of

Common

ambiguous.

We

accordingly conclude that Subsection 6(a) clearly bars coverage
for Carl’s death.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

We

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4