Case Name: Loraine D. POOL; Kevin D. Pool, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, a/k/a State Farm Insurance, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-11-13
Citations: 50 F. App'x 141
Docket Number: No. 02-1696
Parties: Loraine D. POOL; Kevin D. Pool, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, a/k/a State Farm Insurance, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 50
Pages: 141–142

Head Matter:
Loraine D. POOL; Kevin D. Pool, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, a/k/a State Farm Insurance, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 02-1696.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.
Decided Nov. 13, 2002.
Ronnie P. King, Ronnie P. King, P.A., Roxboro, North Carolina, for Appellants. R. Scott Brown, Brown, Crump, Vanore & Tierney, L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Loraine and Kevin Pool appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Company in their action for breach of contract under a fire insurance policy. We affirm.
State Farm moved for summary judgment and the Pools did not respond. The district court found, as a matter of law and upon the facts presented by State Farm, that the Pools had not complied with the policy requirements and that compliance is a condition precedent to bringing suit against the insurer. See Fineberg v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 113 N.C.App. 545, 438 S.E.2d 754, 755 (N.C.App.1994). Failure to comply with conditions precedent "bars recovery as well as the right to bring suit under the policy." Id. We agree with the district court's conclusion that State Farm was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the facts presented in the motion for summary judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), (e); Custer v. Pan American Life Insurance Co., 12 F.3d 410, 416 (4th Cir.1993).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten tions are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.