UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT L. ARSENAULT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee, No. 97-1273

and

CUSTOMIZED SERVICES

ADMINISTRATORS INCORPORATED;

USASSIST, INCORPORATED,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Greenwood.

Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge.

(CA-94-2331-9-23)

Argued: April 6, 1998

Decided: July 22, 1998

Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit

Judge, and CHAMBERS, United States District Judge

for the Southern District of West Virginia,

sitting by designation.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

ARGUED: Thomas Justin Finn, MULLEN LAW FIRM, Hilton Head

Island, South Carolina, for Appellant. Christropher M. Bechhold,

THOMPSON, HINE & FLORY, L.L.P., Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: George E. Mullen, MULLEN LAW FIRM, Hilton

Head Island, South Carolina, for Appellant. R. Davis Howser,

Michael R. Sullivan, HOWSER, NEWMAN & BESLEY, L.L.C.,

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Robert L. Arsenault bought a travel protection package

from Customized Services Administrators, Inc. (CSA) before beginning a trip to Europe. During the trip, Mr. Arsenault became ill. He

eventually was transported by air ambulance from a hospital in Germany to a hospital in the United States. Mr. Arsenault argues that

Appellee Commercial Union Insurance Company (CUIC) breached

its duty under the contract to provide him with $25,000 in medical

transportation coverage. The district court granted summary judgment

for CUIC and denied summary judgment for Mr. Arsenault on the

ground that the contract does not obligate CUIC to provide medical

transportation coverage. We agree with the district court and thus

affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In 1993, Robert L. Arsenault and his wife began a trip to Europe.

During that trip, Mr. Arsenault became very ill and was transported

to a hospital in Hamburg, Germany. Mr. Arsenault remained in the

Hamburg hospital for more than one month before being transported

 2
by air ambulance to a hospital in the United States. The cost of the

flight was more than $25,000.

Before leaving on their trip, the Arsenaults purchased a travel protection package from CSA. The travel protection package consisted

of two types of benefits: 24-hour emergency hotline services provided

by USAssist, Inc. and travel insurance provided by CUIC. The Certificate of Insurance and Description of 24 Hour Emergency Hotline

Services (Certificate), which is part of the insurance contract, sets

forth the duties of USAssist and CUIC.

Under the heading "24-HOUR EMERGENCY HOTLINE SERVICES Provided by USAssist" appear five subheadings: medical

referral, emergency medical transportation, lost ticket and passport

assistance, emergency cash, and legal assistance. Under the heading

"INSURANCE COVERAGES Underwritten by Commercial Union

Insurance Company, Boston, Massachusetts" appear six subheadings:

trip cancellation and interruption coverage, travel delay coverage,

baggage coverage, baggage delay coverage, medical expense coverage, comprehensive travel accident coverage, and collision/loss damage coverage. As part of its medical expense coverage, CUIC agreed

to provide coverage "for professional nursing, hospital, x-ray, ambulance services and prosthetic devices."

The Schedule of Coverages set forth the following relevant maximum benefit amounts:

MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION $25,000.00

. . .

OPTIONAL MEDICAL COVERAGE $10,000.00

Mr. Arsenault received $10,000 in medical coverage benefits from

CUIC, but did not receive $25,000 in medical transportation benefits

from either CUIC or USAssist.

Claiming that he improperly was denied the medical transportation

benefits, Mr. Arsenault sued CSA, CUIC, and USAssist. The trial

 3
judge granted summary judgment for all three defendants. Mr.

Arsenault settled with CSA and USAssist, but not with CUIC, after

filing his notice of appeal. This appeal concerns only the liability of

CUIC for the $25,000 in medical transportation benefits.

II. DISCUSSION

The parties agree that South Carolina law governs this dispute.

Under South Carolina law, "[w]here the words of a policy are capable

of two reasonable interpretations, that construction will be adopted

which is most favorable to the insured." McPherson v. Michigan

Mutual Insurance Co., 426 S.E.2d 770, 771 (S.C. 1993). We review

the district court's grant of summary judgment for CUIC de novo.

Like the district court, we conclude that the contract is not susceptible

to two reasonable interpretations. The contract unambiguously provides that USAssist, not CUIC, is responsible for the $25,000 in medical transportation coverage.

Mr. Arsenault argues that the reference to CUIC's liability for "ambulance services" in the medical expense coverage section creates a

relevant ambiguity. We disagree. Construed in the light most favorable to Mr. Arsenault, the phrase "ambulance services" might include

the air ambulance used to fly Mr. Arsenault from Germany to the

United States. The phrase, however, appears in a section of the contract that unambiguously carries a maximum benefit amount of

$10,000. CUIC paid Mr. Arsenault that amount and owes him no

more.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

AFFIRMED

 4