Moore v. Unum Provident Corp. , 176 F. App'x 352 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1702
ROSANNE MOORE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNUM PROVIDENT CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CA-01-4185-4)
Submitted: March 20, 2006 Decided: April 10, 2006
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin M. Barth, BALLENGER, BARTH & HOEFER, L.L.P., Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Theodore D. Willard, Jr., MONTGOMERY,
PATTERSON, POTTS & WILLARD, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Rosanne Moore (Mrs. Moore) appeals the district court’s
order granting summary judgment in favor of the insurer in her
action for life insurance benefits, following proceedings on remand
from this court. See Moore v. Unum Provident Corp., 116 Fed. Appx.
416 (4th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (unpublished). Mrs. Moore’s suit
for accidental death benefits under the Unum Provident Corporation
(Unum) policy provided by her employer is governed by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et
seq. Finding no error, we affirm.
On October 22, 1998, between 4:00 and 4:30 a.m., Mrs.
Moore’s husband, William E. Moore (Moore), entered the home of his
girlfriend, Lisa McFerrin, without permission. Moore, who was
carrying a handgun, went to McFerrin’s bedroom where he found her
and her invited guest, Jerry Sayles. An altercation between Moore
and Sayles ensued; Sayles wrestled the gun from Moore and beat him
with it. Moore died from cardiac arrhythmia due to the stress of
the beating. A toxicology report revealed that Moore was under the
influence of methamphetamine at the time of his death.
As we noted in our prior opinion, Mrs. Moore had
insurance coverage for accidental injury or death under a policy
maintained by her employer, and her husband was a covered spouse
under the policy. The policy covered losses, including loss of
life, that “result directly and independently of all other causes
- 2 -
from accidental bodily injury.” Mrs. Moore filed a claim for
accidental death benefits under the policy that Unum denied. Mrs.
Moore filed suit to recover benefits under the policy; the district
court initially awarded benefits based upon its determination that
Moore’s death was accidental, because he died of cardiac arrhythmia
that was not foreseeable by him. Unum appealed, and we vacated the
award of benefits and remanded for the district court to apply the
standard set forth in New York Life Ins. Co. v. Murdaugh, 94 F.2d
104 (4th Cir. 1938):
When an insured dies as a result of the intentional act
of another, the death is considered accidental “if the
insured is innocent of aggression, or wrongdoing, or even
if he is the aggressor, if he could not reasonably
anticipate bodily injury resulting in death to himself at
the hands of another.”
On remand, the district court concluded that Moore was
the aggressor in the attack. We agree. Moreover, by entering a
home in the early hours of the morning armed with a gun, Moore
voluntarily exposed himself to a known danger, that the inhabitants
of the home would defend themselves. Thus, Moore’s death was not
due to unforeseeable circumstances or by accidental means, but
rather was the natural sequence to a course of conduct on his part,
preconceived and readily foreseeable as likely to produce just such
a result.
Accordingly, we find that the district court did not err
in granting summary judgment in favor of Unum on remand from this
court. We therefore affirm the district court’s order for the
- 3 -
reasons stated by the district court in its order. See Moore v.
Unum Provident Corp., No. CA-01-4185-4 (D.S.C. May 23, 2005). 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 the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -