Ratliff Ex Rel. Estate of Ratliff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1230
JESSICA RATLIFF, as Administratrix of the Estate of Michael
Ratliff,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (2:13-cv-00008-JPB-JES)
Submitted: September 30, 2014 Decided: October 8, 2014
Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Scott W. Andrews, HOOVER ANDREWS PLLC, Barboursville, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Walter M. Jones, III, E. Kay Fuller,
Michael M. Stevens, MARTIN & SEIBERT, L.C., Martinsburg, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident
that resulted in the death of Jessica Ratliff’s husband.
Ratliff sought to recover under the underinsured motorist
provision in the decedent’s automobile insurance policy, which
was issued by State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. (State Farm).
State Farm refused payment on the ground that the decedent bore
primary responsibility for the accident. Ratliff then sued
State Farm, and the district court granted summary judgment in
favor of State Farm. Ratliff now appeals. We affirm.
Ratliff first contends that the district court abused
its discretion when it granted State Farm’s motion to strike
Ratliff’s expert witness, Kevin Theriault. The district court
excluded Theriault’s testimony on the ground that his opinion
was based in speculation and conjecture and was unsupported by
sufficient known facts. After thorough review, we hold that the
testimony was unreliable under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993), and,
accordingly, was properly excluded.
We further hold that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in granting State Farm’s motion to file its
summary judgment motion beyond the deadline set in a scheduling
order. Notably, the summary judgment motion reasonably could
not have been filed until after the district court ruled on the
2
motion to strike, and that ruling was issued after the relevant
deadline.
Finally, with respect to the court’s order granting
the motion for summary judgment, we have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court.
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
3