UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 22-1462

MAJDOLEEN A. KHATTAB, Administrator, Estate of Affan Mohamad Khattab, 

Deceased, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

BERKLEY REGIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY; INTEGON GENERAL 

INSURANCE CORPORATION, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:21-cv-00789-HEH) 

Submitted: April 26, 2023 Decided: October 19, 2023 

Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, GREGORY, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

ON BRIEF: Bradley P. Marrs, MARRS & HENRY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. 

Robert F. Friedman, HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Glen Allen, 

Virginia, for Appellee Berkley Regional Insurance Company. Jeremy S. Tishler, 

LEVINECARITA, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee Integon General Insurance 

Corporation.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1462 Doc: 29 Filed: 10/19/2023 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Majdoleen A. Khattab, Administratrix of the Estate of Affan Mohamad Khattab, 

(“Appellant” or “the Estate”), appeals the district court’s order denying the Estate’s motion 

for summary judgment, granting summary judgment for Berkley Regional Insurance 

Company and Integon General Insurance (collectively, “the insurers”), and entering an 

order of declaratory judgment in favor of the insurers. Finding no error, we affirm.

I.

“We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.” Guthrie v. PHH 

Mortg. Corp., 79 F.4th 328, 342 (4th Cir. 2023). In so doing, we apply the same legal standards 

as the district court and view all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to 

the nonmoving party. T-Mobile Ne. LLC v. City Council of Newport News, 674 F.3d 380, 

384–85 (4th Cir. 2012). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 56(a), summary 

judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that 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).

II.

Because the parties filed joint stipulations of all relevant facts, there are no disputed 

facts. At issue is an insurance policy issued by Berkley Regional Insurance Company. The 

policy has a general liability limit of $1,000,000 and an uninsured motorist coverage limit 

of $70,000. This case solely turns on the legal question of what the relevant coverage limit 

under the insurance policy is for an accident caused by a motorist whose insurance 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1462 Doc: 29 Filed: 10/19/2023 Pg: 2 of 4
3

coverage is less than the amount of claimed damages and less than the amount of the 

general liability limit, but greater than the amount of the uninsured motorist coverage limit.

Virginia Code § 38.2-2206 mandates that an insurance policy’s uninsured motorist 

coverage limits must match the policy’s liability limits “unless any one named insured 

rejects the additional uninsured motorist coverage by notifying the insurer as provided in 

subsection B of § 38.2-2202.” Va. Code Ann. § 38.2-2206(A) (2022). Section 38.2-2202 

in turn provides specific language that a legally adequate notice from the insurer to the 

insured must include and what the insured must do to reduce the coverage limit. Id. § 38.2-

2202(B). There is no dispute that Berkley complied with the notice requirement for 

“uninsured/underinsured coverage limits” pursuant to the statute. There is also no dispute 

that the insured properly limited the uninsured coverage to $70,000.

With respect to underinsured coverage, § 38.2-2206 provides that the policy

shall also provide underinsured motorist insurance coverage with limits that 

shall be equal to the uninsured motorist insurance coverage limits and shall 

obligate the insurer to make payment for bodily injury or property damage 

caused by the operation or use of an underinsured motor vehicle to the extent 

the vehicle is underinsured.

Id. § 38.2-2206(A) (emphasis added). A notice requirement and reduction provision for 

underinsurance only applies if the policy seeks to “reduce any underinsured coverage 

payments by the bodily injury liability or property damage liability coverage available for 

payment.” Id.

On its face, Appellant’s argument is straightforward. Appellant argues that because 

the document through which the insured reduced the coverage limit is titled “Virginia 

Selection of Lower Uninsured Motorists Coverage Limits,” and repeatedly references 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1462 Doc: 29 Filed: 10/19/2023 Pg: 3 of 4
4

“uninsured motorist” coverage, while using the term “underinsured” only once, that 

document only reduced the insured’s uninsured motorist coverage limit. Therefore, 

Appellant argues, the underinsured coverage limit remained at $1,000,000, equal to the 

policy’s general liability limit.

Appellant is correct that the insurance policy does not alter underinsured coverage 

from the statutory default. But Appellant overlooks that the statutory default sets 

underinsured motorist coverage equal to uninsured motorist coverage, not the policy’s 

general liability limit. See Va. Code Ann. § 38.2-2206(A) (stating that underinsured 

motorist coverage “shall be equal to the uninsured motorist coverage limits” (emphasis 

added)). Because the uninsured motorist coverage was properly limited to $70,000, and 

the policy does not provide for underinsured motorist coverage different from the statutory 

default, the district court correctly concluded that the applicable coverage limit is $70,000.

III.

Accordingly, we affirm. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1462 Doc: 29 Filed: 10/19/2023 Pg: 4 of 4