Case Name: TMS ENVIROCON, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BB&T INSURANCE SERVICES, INCORPORATED, d/b/a DeJarnett & Paul, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-25
Citations: 432 F. App'x 222
Docket Number: No. 10-1846
Parties: TMS ENVIROCON, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. BB&T INSURANCE SERVICES, INCORPORATED, d/b/a DeJarnett & Paul, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 432
Pages: 222–223

Head Matter:
TMS ENVIROCON, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. BB&T INSURANCE SERVICES, INCORPORATED, d/b/a DeJarnett & Paul, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 10-1846.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 28, 2011.
Decided: May 25, 2011.
John S. Wilson, Wilson & McIntyre, PLLC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. W.F. Drewry Gallalee, Harold E. Johnson, Williams Mullen, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
TMS Envirocon, Inc., appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to BB&T Insurance Services, Inc., on TMS' breach of contract claim. TMS claimed that because BB&T Insurance Services failed to timely report a TMS claim to its insurer, as it was contractually obligated to do, TMS lost insurance coverage for the claim.
"Because we have diversity jurisdiction in this case, we apply the choice of law rules of the forum state — in this case Virginia." CACI Int'l, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 566 F.3d 150, 154, 155 (4th Cir.2009). In Virginia "[t]he elements of a breach of contract action are (1) a legally enforceable obligation of a defendant to a plaintiff; (2) the defendant's violation or breach of that obligation; and (3) injury or damage to the plaintiff caused by the breach of obligation." Filak v. George, 267 Va. 612, 594 S.E.2d 610, 614 (2004) (citations omitted).
After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not err in holding that TMS failed to prove causation because the insurer denied coverage of the claim also on the alternative ground that the policy did not provide coverage for the claim. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.