Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01443/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01443-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cincinnati Insurance Company
Appellee
Eugene Wurtele
Appellant
Nancy Wurtele
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Thomas D. Thalken, United States Magistrate Judge for the

District of Nebraska, sitting by consent of the parties.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1443

___________

Eugene Wurtele; Nancy Wurtele, *

*

Plaintiffs - Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District of

* Nebraska.

Cincinnati Insurance Company, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: December 16, 2009

Filed: January 8, 2010

___________

Before BYE, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM

Eugene Wurtele and Nancy Wurtele appeal the district court's1

 grant of

summary judgment in favor of Cincinnati Insurance Company, holding it had no

contractual obligation to indemnify the Wurteles for damage to their home caused by

the lateral movement of a street adjacent to their property. We affirm.

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard

as the district court. Jaurequi v. Carter Mfg. Co., Inc., 173 F.3d 1076, 1085 (8th Cir.

Appellate Case: 09-1443 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2010 Entry ID: 3622309
-2-

1999). Summary judgment is proper if there exists no genuine issue as to any material

fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(c). When ruling on a summary judgment motion, a court must view the evidence

"in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Dush v. Appleton Elec. Co.,

124 F.3d 957, 962-63 (8th Cir. 1997). However, a "nonmovant must present more

than a scintilla of evidence and must advance specific facts to create a genuine issue

of material fact for trial." F.D.I.C. v. Bell, 106 F.3d 258, 263 (8th Cir. 1997).

The district court concluded the insurance policy issued to the Wurteles by

Cincinnati Insurance Company excluded coverage for the damage to the insured's

home. We agree with the district court for the reasons stated in its well-reasoned

order and affirm under 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-1443 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2010 Entry ID: 3622309