UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


INTER-STATE HARDWOODS COMPANY,         
INCORPORATED, a West Virginia
Corporation,
                 Plaintiff-Appellee,
                 v.
THE HARTFORD STEAM BOILER                       No. 02-1591
INSPECTION & INSURANCE COMPANY,
an Insurance Company Authorized
to do Business in the State of West
Virginia,
               Defendant-Appellant.
                                       
INTER-STATE HARDWOODS COMPANY,         
INCORPORATED, a West Virginia
Corporation,
                Plaintiff-Appellant,
                 v.
THE HARTFORD STEAM BOILER                       No. 02-1628
INSPECTION & INSURANCE COMPANY,
an Insurance Company Authorized
to do Business in the State of West
Virginia,
                Defendant-Appellee.
                                       
           Appeals from the United States District Court
       for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins.
             Robert E. Maxwell, Senior District Judge.
                          (CA-98-14-2)
                      Submitted: June 11, 2003
                      Decided: August 1, 2003
2        INTER-STATE HARDWOODS v. HARTFORD STEAM BOILER
       Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.



Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.



                              COUNSEL

Ernest J. Mattei, Sean M. Fisher, DAY, BERRY, & HOWARD,
L.L.P., Hartford, Connecticut; James F. Companion, SCHRADER,
BYRD & COMPANION, P.L.L.C., Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellant. Harry A. Smith, III, JORY & SMITH, L.C., Elkins, West
Virginia, for Appellee.



Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).



                              OPINION

PER CURIAM:

   In these consolidated appeals, the parties present several assign-
ments of error with respect to the district court’s order establishing in
general terms the extent of Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and
Insurance Company, Inc.’s liability to Inter-State Hardwoods Com-
pany, Inc. ("Inter-State") for losses it suffered following a 1996 flood
of the Greenbrier River in West Virginia. However, this court may
exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000),
and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292
(2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,

(1949). To the extent the order appealed fails to set
damages, it is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
         INTER-STATE HARDWOODS v. HARTFORD STEAM BOILER                3
collateral order. See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 

,
743 n.4, 744 (1976).*

   Further, we observe that the parties’ stipulation did not purport to
resolve "the existence, nature, extent or cause of [Inter-State’s]
alleged loss," or waive any defenses (J.A. 68), and that Hartford
Steam limited its motion to the narrow issue of "whether or not the
Policy provides coverage for Inter-State’s claim . . . assuming that
such damage was caused as alleged by Inter-State" (J.A. 93). In light
of the conditional nature of the parties’ joint stipulation and Hartford
Steam’s pleadings, it appears the district court’s order did not conclu-
sively determine all of the parties’ rights, see, e.g., Fox v. Baltimore
City Police Dept., 

, 530-31 (4th Cir. 2000), and that res-
olution of these issues would be appropriate. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d)
(describing proceedings appropriate when a motion for summary
judgment does not fully adjudicate the case); Virginia Hosp. Assoc.
v. Baliles, 

, 1310 n.1 (4th Cir. 1987) (noting it was
appropriate for district court to consider on remand issues raised, but
not initially resolved, in a motion for summary judgment).

  Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dis-
pense 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.

                                                           DISMISSED

   *"The order . . . constitutes a grant of partial summary judgment lim-
ited to the issue of petitioner’s liability. Such judgments are by their
terms interlocutory, see [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 56(c), and where assessment of
damages or awarding of other relief remains to be resolved have never
been considered to be ‘final’ within the meaning of [§ 1291]."