Case Name: Wesley E. DIXON, Appellant, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Nationwide Life Insurance Company, Nationwide General Insurance Company, and Nationwide Property and Casualty Company, Appellees; Wesley E. DIXON, Appellee, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Nationwide Life Insurance Company, Nationwide General Insurance Company and Nationwide Property and Casualty Company, Appellants; James Lee BECKMAN, formerly d/b/a Jim Beckman Insurance Company; Jasper N. Watson, Jr., Appellees, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Nationwide General Insurance Company, Nationwide Property and Casualty Company, and Horace Mann Insurance Company, Horace Mann Life Insurance Company, and Educators Marketing Services Corporation, Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1986-09-12
Citations: 800 F.2d 422
Docket Number: Nos. 84-2364, 84-2365 and 85-1106
Parties: Wesley E. DIXON, Appellant, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Nationwide Life Insurance Company, Nationwide General Insurance Company, and Nationwide Property and Casualty Company, Appellees. Wesley E. DIXON, Appellee, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Nationwide Life Insurance Company, Nationwide General Insurance Company and Nationwide Property and Casualty Company, Appellants. James Lee BECKMAN, formerly d/b/a Jim Beckman Insurance Company; Jasper N. Watson, Jr., Appellees, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Nationwide General Insurance Company, Nationwide Property and Casualty Company, and Horace Mann Insurance Company, Horace Mann Life Insurance Company, and Educators Marketing Services Corporation, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 800
Pages: 422–424

Head Matter:
Wesley E. DIXON, Appellant, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Nationwide Life Insurance Company, Nationwide General Insurance Company, and Nationwide Property and Casualty Company, Appellees. Wesley E. DIXON, Appellee, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Nationwide Life Insurance Company, Nationwide General Insurance Company and Nationwide Property and Casualty Company, Appellants. James Lee BECKMAN, formerly d/b/a Jim Beckman Insurance Company; Jasper N. Watson, Jr., Appellees, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Nationwide General Insurance Company, Nationwide Property and Casualty Company, and Horace Mann Insurance Company, Horace Mann Life Insurance Company, and Educators Marketing Services Corporation, Appellants.
Nos. 84-2364, 84-2365 and 85-1106.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued July 14, 1986.
Decided Sept. 12, 1986.
Before WINTER, Chief Judge, and RUSSELL, WIDENER, HALL, PHILLIPS, MURNAGHAN, SPROUSE, ERVIN, CHAPMAN, WILKINSON and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, sitting en banc.

Opinion:
DONALD RUSSELL, Circuit Judge:
Following a request for en banc hearing of the appeal herein, a majority of the active judges of this Court voted to grant en banc hearing. The appeal was accordingly heard by the en banc court. After the hearing, a majority of the Court, consisting of Judges Russell, Widener, Hall, Chapman, Wilkinson, and Wilkins, voted not to certify the cause to the South Carolina Supreme Court but to affirm the judgments of the district court in the consolidated appeals herein on the majority panel opinion of Judge Emory M. Sneeden, as reported in 784 F.2d 1176.
Dissenting, Judges Winter, Phillips, Mur-naghan, Sprouse and Ervin would certify the issues in this case to the South Carolina Supreme Court; however, assuming a majority of the Court had not agreed to certification, Judges Phillips, Murnaghan, Sprouse and Ervin would sustain the constitutionality of South Carolina Code Annotated § 38-37-940(2) and would affirm the judgment of the district court in the Beck-ham case but would reverse the judgment in the Dixon case and remand it for a new trial for the reasons stated in Judge Phillips' dissenting and concurring opinion, also reported in 784 F.2d 1176.
AFFIRMED.