Nationwide Mutual Insurance Ex Rel. Harleysville Mutual Insurance v. Selective Insurance , 586 F. App'x 147 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1447
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, as successor by merger
to Harleysville Mutual Insurance Company,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Defendant – Appellant,
and
WELL SERVICE GROUP, INC.; JOSHUA UNDERWOOD; DIAMOND
TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00104-IMK)
Submitted: November 26, 2014 Decided: December 8, 2014
Before KING, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth M. Portner, WEBER GALLAGHER SIMPSON STAPLETON FIRES &
NEWBY, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Brian S. Kane,
Matthew A. Meyers, DAPPER, BALDASARE, BENSON, BEHLING & KANE,
P.C., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Selective Insurance Company of South Carolina
(Selective) appeals from the district court’s order granting
summary judgment in favor of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
(Nationwide) in Nationwide’s declaratory judgment action against
Selective seeking a declaration from the court that Nationwide
had no duty to defend or indemnify Selective’s insureds with
respect to any claim arising out of an October 2012 automobile
accident. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment
de novo, viewing the facts and drawing reasonable inferences in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Halpern v.
Wake Forest Univ. Health Scis., 669 F.3d 454, 460 (4th Cir.
2012). Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). A district court should grant summary judgment unless a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party
on the evidence presented. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 249 (1986).
With these standards in mind, we have reviewed the
record and examined each of Selective’s claims and conclude that
they are without merit. The district court correctly applied
Pennsylvania law to conclude that Selective’s insured, Well
3
Service Group, Inc. (WSG), was the sole owner of the vehicle
involved in the October 2012 accident and that Nationwide had no
duty to defend or indemnify WSG or its employee with respect to
any claim arising out of the accident.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We grant Nationwide’s unopposed motion to file a surreply brief,
and consider the brief tendered with the motion. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4