CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY v. BATTERY WEALTH, INCORPORATED, 11-1600. (2012)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20120802097
Visitors: 1
Filed: Aug. 02, 2012
Latest Update: Aug. 02, 2012
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carol M. Graf, Charles W. Woolen, and Pamela Woolen appeal the district court's order granting summary judgment for Continental on its complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that no coverage existed under two professional services liability insurance policies it issued to Battery Wealth, Inc., for claims made by the Appellants and others. We have thoroughly reviewed the district court's order and conclude that the c
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carol M. Graf, Charles W. Woolen, and Pamela Woolen appeal the district court's order granting summary judgment for Continental on its complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that no coverage existed under two professional services liability insurance policies it issued to Battery Wealth, Inc., for claims made by the Appellants and others. We have thoroughly reviewed the district court's order and conclude that the co..
More
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carol M. Graf, Charles W. Woolen, and Pamela Woolen appeal the district court's order granting summary judgment for Continental on its complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that no coverage existed under two professional services liability insurance policies it issued to Battery Wealth, Inc., for claims made by the Appellants and others. We have thoroughly reviewed the district court's order and conclude that the court did not err in concluding that coverage was barred under the policies due to the prior knowledge condition precedent. See Bryan Bros. Inc. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 660 F.3d 827 (4th Cir. 2011).* Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
FootNotes
* We note that the Appellants in their opening brief erroneously stated that this case was an unpublished opinion of this court. Although the Appellee pointed to this error in its response brief, the Appellants failed to correct their misstatement in the reply brief or otherwise inform the court of this mistake.
Source: Leagle
