The Continental Insurance Co v. Mark Gentile

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00654-LO-IDD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999291275].. [13-1915]

Appeal: 13-1915

Doc: 23

Filed: 02/05/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1915

THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MARK A. GENTILE,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:13-cv-00654-LO-IDD)

Submitted:

January 16, 2014

Decided:

February 5, 2014

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher A. Abel, G. Blake Christensen, WILLCOX & SAVAGE, PC,
Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant.
David Rosenblum, ROSENBLUM &
ROSENBLUM, LLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1915

Doc: 23

Filed: 02/05/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
The

Continental

Insurance

Company

(“Continental”)

filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment that it did not
owe Mark A. Gentile under a marine insurance policy it issued to
insure his sailboat.
an

Gentile personally sustained injuries from

unidentified/uninsured

uninsured

boater

boater,

provision

in

and

its

the

policy

Coverage

included

G.

an

Continental

alleged the incident was excluded, however, because there was no
boat-to-boat damage as required under Exclusion F of the policy.
The parties filed cross-motions for judgment as a matter of law
under

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

12(c),

and

the

district

court

denied

Continental’s motion and granted Gentile’s.
Continental appeals, raising three issues: (1) whether
the district court erred by relying on evidence outside the four
corners of the policy of marine insurance issued to Gentile in
order

to

determine

that

the

policy

was

subject

to

the

requirements contained in Virginia Code Ann. § 38.2-2232 (Lexis
Nexis 2007); (2) whether the district court erred by ruling that
the policy of marine insurance issued to Gentile was subject to
the requirements contained in § 38.2-2232; and (3) whether the
district
insurance

court

erred

issued

to

by

ruling

Gentile

that
was

the
in

policy

conflict

of

marine

with

the

requirements contained in § 38.2-2232, and, as such, Exclusion F
to that policy’s Coverage G was unenforceable.
2

Appeal: 13-1915

Doc: 23

Filed: 02/05/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court.

The Cont’l Ins. Co. v. Gentile, No. 1:13-cv-

00654-LO-IDD (E.D. Va. July 12, 2013).

We dispense with oral

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

3