Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01867/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01867-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
ARC Construction, Inc.

ARC Construction, LLC
Appellee
Builders Mutual Insurance Company
Appellant
Ali Ergul
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1867

BUILDERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

ALI ERGUL; ARC CONSTRUCTION, LLC,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

ARC CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, 

District Judge. (1:15-cv-00406-AJT-JFA)

Submitted: April 29, 2016 Decided: May 11, 2016

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Danny M. Howell, Michael T. Marr, Sarah A. Bucovetsky, SANDS 

ANDERSON PC, McLean, Virginia, for Appellant. Joseph F. 

Cunningham, Aaron J. Cheatham, CUNNINGHAM & ASSOCIATES, PLC, 

Arlington, Virginia, for Appellees.

Appeal: 15-1867 Doc: 29 Filed: 05/11/2016 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1867 Doc: 29 Filed: 05/11/2016 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM:

Builders Mutual Insurance Company appeals the district 

court’s order dismissing its complaint for a declaratory 

judgment that it has no duty to defend the Appellees in an 

underlying action related to construction work performed by the 

Appellees under an insurance policy issued by Builders Mutual. 

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12(b)(6), accepting factual allegations in the complaint 

as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the 

nonmoving party. Kensington Volunteer Fire Dep’t v. Montgomery 

Cty., 684 F.3d 462, 467 (4th Cir. 2012). Under Virginia law, 

“the duty of an insurer to defend an insured . . . is broader 

than its obligation to pay or indemnify its insured.” Fuisz v. 

Selective Ins. Co. of Am., 61 F.3d 238, 242 (4th Cir. 1995) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). “Determination of whether 

an insurer has a duty to defend requires examination of (1) the 

policy language to ascertain the terms of the coverage and 

(2) the underlying complaint to determine whether any claims 

alleged therein are covered by the policy.” Id.

Courts must construe policy terms in favor of the insured. 

Fuisz, 61 F.3d at 242. Therefore, “exclusions from coverage are 

enforceable only when the exclusions unambiguously bring the 

particular act or omission within its scope.” Fuisz, 61 F.3d at 

242 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Copp v. Nationwide 

Appeal: 15-1867 Doc: 29 Filed: 05/11/2016 Pg: 3 of 4
4

Mut. Ins. Co., 692 S.E.2d 220, 223 (Va. 2010) (“Language in a 

policy purporting to exclude certain events from coverage will 

be construed most strongly against the insurer.”). Therefore, 

if a pleading sets forth any set of facts and circumstances 

which, if proved, would fall within the risk covered by the 

policy, the insurer has a duty to defend. Fuisz, 61 F.3d at 242 

(“If a complaint, however ambiguous, may be read as premising 

liability on alternative grounds, and either ground states 

liability potentially or arguably covered by the policy, the 

insured is entitled to a defense.”). 

We have reviewed the record and found no reversible error.* 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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 in the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

 * We note that the district court, as it stated in open 

court, in determining that none of the challenged exclusions to 

coverage applied, did not rule on the application of the 

hazardous properties of lead exclusion or the total pollution 

exclusion of the policy. 

Appeal: 15-1867 Doc: 29 Filed: 05/11/2016 Pg: 4 of 4