Court Opinion

ID: 1001091
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:50:28.832397+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:13.552179
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

SHANNON D. OGLE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                               No. 99-2143
UNITED STATES LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.

SHANNON D. OGLE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.                                                             No. 99-2144

HARTFORD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge.
(CA-99-1370-S, CA-99-1395-S)

Submitted: February 29, 2000

Decided: March 15, 2000

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

Clifford R. Bridgford, Frederick, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas G.
Young, III, YOUNG & VALKENET, L.L.C., Baltimore, Maryland;
Nell B. Strachan, VENABLE, BAETJER AND HOWARD, L.L.P.,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Shannon Ogle appeals the district court's orders denying her
motions for summary judgment, granting summary judgment to Hart-
ford Life Insurance Company (Hartford), granting summary judgment
to United States Life Insurance Company (U.S. Life), and denying her
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion for reconsideration in her ERISA actions,
29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461 (1994). Ogle claims that the district court
erred in finding as a matter of law that Hartford's claims examiner did
not abuse its discretion in determining that her decedent was intoxi-
cated at the time of his death and that his intoxication caused the
motorcycle wreck in which he sustained his fatal injuries. We have
reviewed the record and find that Hartford's decision was "the result
of a deliberate, principled reasoning process" and that it was "sup-
ported by substantial evidence." Ellis v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,
126 F.3d 228, 232 (4th Cir. 1997).

Ogle also claims that the district court erred when it found as a
matter of law that U.S. Life properly denied the accidental death
claim that she brought on behalf of her decedent based upon its poli-
cy's intoxication exclusion. We find that the district court properly
granted summary judgment in favor of U.S. Life. See Baker v. Provi-
dent Life & Accident Ins. Co., 171 F.3d 939, 942 (4th Cir. 1999); see
also Weaver v. Phoenix Home Life Ins. Mut. Ins. Co. , 990 F.2d 154,
157 (4th Cir. 1993).

                    2
Accordingly, we affirm the orders of the district court. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3