Inter-State Hardwoods Co. v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance , 71 F. App'x 215 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                          UNPUBLISHED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    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.,
    
    337 U.S. 541
     (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, 
    424 U.S. 737
    ,
    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., 
    201 F.3d 526
    , 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, 
    830 F.2d 1308
    , 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]."
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-1591, 02-1628

Citation Numbers: 71 F. App'x 215

Judges: Luttig, Motz, Per Curiam, Shedd

Filed Date: 8/1/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024