2315 St. Paul Street, LLC v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cv-03641-GLR Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999167656].. [12-2203]

2315 St. Paul Street, LLC v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co

Appeal: 12-2203

Doc: 35

Filed: 08/07/2013

Doc. 0

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2203

2315 ST. PAUL STREET, LLC,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge.
(1:10-cv-03641-GLR)

Submitted:

June 7, 2013

Decided:

August 7, 2013

Before DAVIS and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony G. Gorski, RICH & HENDERSON, P.C., Annapolis, Maryland,
for Appellant.
Steven M. Klepper, Mary Beth Smith, KRAMON &
GRAHAM, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Appeal: 12-2203

Doc: 35

Filed: 08/07/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
This case involves a coverage dispute for loss of property
by theft under a builder’s risk policy.
Paul

Street,

LLC

(St.

Paul)

On

challenges

appeal,
the

2315

district

St.

court’s

grant of summary judgment in favor of Hartford Fire Insurance
Company (Hartford) with respect to Plaintiff’s claims alleging
breach of contract and failure to act in good faith--both under
Maryland law.
Our careful review of the briefing, appellate record, and
relevant law compels us to conclude that the district court did
not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Hartford.

We

affirm on the reasoning of the district court, as stated in its
June 25, 2012 memorandum opinion.

2315 St. Paul St., LLC v.

Hartford Fire Ins. Co., Civil Action No. GLR-10-3641, 2012 WL
2450167 (D. Md. June 25, 2012).
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

- 2 -