Westfield Insurance Company v. Carpenter Reclamation, Inc

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:13-cv-12818 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999598627].. [14-2027]

Appeal: 14-2027

Doc: 23

Filed: 06/09/2015

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2027

WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARPENTER RECLAMATION, INC., a West Virginia corporation,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF GREENBRIER COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA,
a statutory corporation,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley.
Irene C. Berger,
District Judge. (5:13-cv-12818)

Submitted:

May 29, 2015

Before KEENAN
Circuit Judge.

and

WYNN,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

June 9, 2015

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carl J. Roncaglione, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF CARL J. RONCAGLIONE,
JR., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Brent K. Kesner,
KESNER & KESNER, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Appeal: 14-2027

Doc: 23

Filed: 06/09/2015

Pg: 2 of 6

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-2027

Doc: 23

Filed: 06/09/2015

Pg: 3 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Carpenter Reclamation, Inc. (Carpenter), appeals from the
district

court’s

(Westfield)’s
judgment

order

motion

action.

granting

for

Westfield

summary

Carpenter

Insurance

judgment

challenges

in

the

its

Company

declaratory

district

court’s

grant of summary judgment in Westfield’s favor and the denial in
part and denial of its motions to compel discovery.
that

Carpenter

fails

to

establish

reversible

We conclude

error

in

the

district court’s judgment and affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s award of summary
judgment and view the facts in the light most favorable to the
non-moving

party.

(4th Cir. 2013).
record

shows

Woollard

v.

Gallagher,

712

F.3d

865,

873

“Summary judgment is appropriate only if the

‘that

there

is

no

genuine

dispute

as

to

any

material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).
The relevant inquiry on summary judgment is “whether the
evidence

presents

a

sufficient

disagreement

to

require

submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one
party must prevail as a matter of law.”
Lobby,

Inc.,

summary

judgment

competent
genuine

477

evidence

issue

of

U.S.

242,

motion,

the

sufficient
material

251-52

(1986).

non-moving
to

fact
3

reveal

for

Anderson v. Liberty
To

party
the

trial.

withstand
must

produce

existence
See

a

of

Thompson

a
v.

Appeal: 14-2027

Doc: 23

Potomac

Elec.

Filed: 06/09/2015

Power

Co.,

312

Pg: 4 of 6

F.3d

645,

649

(4th

Cir.

2002)

(“Conclusory or speculative allegations do not suffice, nor does
a

mere

scintilla

of

evidence

in

support

of

[the

non-moving

party’s] case.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

We will

uphold the district court’s grant of summary judgment unless a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party
on the evidence presented.

See EEOC v. Cent. Wholesalers, Inc.,

573 F.3d 167, 174-75 (4th Cir. 2009).
We conclude after review of the record and the parties’
briefs

that

granting

the

summary

district
judgment

court
to

did

not

Westfield.

reversibly
Westfield

err
sought

in
a

declaratory judgment that its insurance policy did not provide
coverage for the defense or indemnification of Carpenter and
that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Carpenter against
claims

asserted

in

state

court

by

Defendant

the

Board

of

Education of Greenbrier County, West Virginia (Board), arising
from Carpenter’s contract with the Board.
merit

Carpenter’s

challenge

to

We reject as without

the

district

court’s

determinations that the Board’s petitions in state court did not
allege conduct covered under the policy and thus did not trigger
Westfield’s duty to defend.
the

district

otherwise

court

reversibly

did
err

Contrary to Carpenter’s suggestion,
not

violate

in

West

concluding

Virginia
that

the

law

or

Board’s

petitions did not allege property damage caused by an occurrence
4

Appeal: 14-2027

Doc: 23

Filed: 06/09/2015

covered under the policy.

Pg: 5 of 6

See Cherrington v. Erie Ins. Prop. &

Cas. Co., 745 S.E.2d 508, 511, 520 (W. Va. 2013); W. Va. Fire &
Cas. Co. v. Stanley, 602 S.E.2d 483, 492 (W. Va. 2004).

We also

reject as unsupported and otherwise without merit Carpenter’s
remaining

arguments

challenging

the

district

court’s

determination that Westfield’s duty to defend was not triggered
in

this

case

and

decline

Carpenter’s

invitation

to

certify

issues to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
Carpenter

also

challenges

the

magistrate

judge’s

order

denying in part its motion to compel and the district court’s
ruling denying as moot its other motions to compel.

District

courts

managing

are

afforded

substantial

discretion

in

discovery, and this court reviews discovery rulings for abuse of
discretion.
Savannah

United

River

States

Co.,

rel.

Becker

F.3d

305

ex

284,

290

v.

Westinghouse

(4th

Cir.

2002).

Evidentiary rulings in the district court, even if constituting
an

abuse

of

Carpenter’s

discretion,
substantial

are

reversible

rights.

538 F.3d 306, 317 (4th Cir. 2008).
affect

substantial

reviewing

court

pondering

all

is

that

rights,
able

to

happened

and
say

See

only

if

Buckley

they
v.

affect

Mukasey,

“[E]videntiary errors do not
thus

are

with

without

fair

harmless,

if

assurance,

stripping

the

[a]
after

erroneous

action from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially

5

Appeal: 14-2027

Doc: 23

Filed: 06/09/2015

swayed by the errors.”

Pg: 6 of 6

Id. at 320 (internal quotation marks

omitted).
We need not resolve the merits of Carptenter’s challenges
to the denial and denial in part of its motions to compel.
assuming

that

the

denials

were

erroneous,

we

conclude

Even
after

review of the briefs that Carpenter has not plausibly suggested
any basis for concluding that the documents it sought in its
motions would have any bearing on the dispositive issues in this
case.

Accordingly, any error in the denial of the motions was

harmless.
Accordingly,
We dispense

with

contentions

are

we
oral

affirm

the

argument

adequately

district
because

presented

in

court’s

judgment.

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

6