Jessica Ratliff v. State Farm
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:13-cv-00008-JPB-JES Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999451839].. [14-1230]
Appeal: 14-1230
Doc: 26
Filed: 10/08/2014
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1230
JESSICA RATLIFF, as Administratrix of the Estate of Michael
Ratliff,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins.
John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (2:13-cv-00008-JPB-JES)
Submitted:
September 30, 2014
Before KING and
Circuit Judge.
WYNN,
Circuit
Decided:
Judges,
and
October 8, 2014
HAMILTON,
Senior
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Scott W. Andrews, HOOVER ANDREWS PLLC, Barboursville, West
Virginia, for Appellant.
Walter M. Jones, III, E. Kay Fuller,
Michael M. Stevens,
MARTIN & SEIBERT, L.C., Martinsburg, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-1230
Doc: 26
Filed: 10/08/2014
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident
that
resulted
Ratliff
sought
in
to
the
death
recover
of
Jessica
under
husband.
underinsured
the
Ratliff’s
motorist
provision in the decedent’s automobile insurance policy, which
was issued by State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. (State Farm).
State Farm refused payment on the ground that the decedent bore
primary
responsibility
for
the
accident.
Ratliff
then
sued
State Farm, and the district court granted summary judgment in
favor of State Farm.
Ratliff now appeals.
We affirm.
Ratliff first contends that the district court abused
its discretion when it granted State Farm’s motion to strike
Ratliff’s expert witness, Kevin Theriault.
The district court
excluded Theriault’s testimony on the ground that his opinion
was based in speculation and conjecture and was unsupported by
sufficient known facts.
After thorough review, we hold that the
testimony was unreliable under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert v.
Merrell
Dow
Pharms.,
Inc.,
509
U.S.
579,
589
(1993),
and,
accordingly, was properly excluded.
We further hold that the district court did not abuse
its
discretion
in
granting
State
Farm’s
motion
to
file
its
summary judgment motion beyond the deadline set in a scheduling
order.
Notably, the summary judgment motion reasonably could
not have been filed until after the district court ruled on the
2
Appeal: 14-1230
Doc: 26
Filed: 10/08/2014
Pg: 3 of 3
motion to strike, and that ruling was issued after the relevant
deadline.
Finally, with respect to the court’s order granting
the motion for summary judgment, we have reviewed the record and
find
no
reversible
error.
Accordingly,
we
affirm
for
the
reasons stated by the district court.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before
contentions
this
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?