Court Opinion

ID: 9892193
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-20 21:00:39.508866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:17:46.395572
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1462      Doc: 29         Filed: 10/19/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1462

        MAJDOLEEN A. KHATTAB, Administrator, Estate of Affan Mohamad Khattab,
        Deceased,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        BERKLEY REGIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY; INTEGON GENERAL
        INSURANCE CORPORATION,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:21-cv-00789-HEH)

        Submitted: April 26, 2023                                         Decided: October 19, 2023

        Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, GREGORY, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Bradley P. Marrs, MARRS & HENRY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant.
        Robert F. Friedman, HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Glen Allen,
        Virginia, for Appellee Berkley Regional Insurance Company. Jeremy S. Tishler,
        LEVINECARITA, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee Integon General Insurance
        Corporation.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1462       Doc: 29          Filed: 10/19/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Majdoleen A. Khattab, Administratrix of the Estate of Affan Mohamad Khattab,

        (“Appellant” or “the Estate”), appeals the district court’s order denying the Estate’s motion

        for summary judgment, granting summary judgment for Berkley Regional Insurance

        Company and Integon General Insurance (collectively, “the insurers”), and entering an

        order of declaratory judgment in favor of the insurers. Finding no error, we affirm.

                                                       I.

               “We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.” Guthrie v. PHH

        Mortg. Corp., 79 F.4th 328, 342 (4th Cir. 2023). In so doing, we apply the same legal standards

        as the district court and view all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to

        the nonmoving party. T-Mobile Ne. LLC v. City Council of Newport News, 674 F.3d 380,

        384–85 (4th Cir. 2012). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 56(a), summary

        judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material

        fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

                                                       II.

               Because the parties filed joint stipulations of all relevant facts, there are no disputed

        facts. At issue is an insurance policy issued by Berkley Regional Insurance Company. The

        policy has a general liability limit of $1,000,000 and an uninsured motorist coverage limit

        of $70,000. This case solely turns on the legal question of what the relevant coverage limit

        under the insurance policy is for an accident caused by a motorist whose insurance

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1462      Doc: 29          Filed: 10/19/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        coverage is less than the amount of claimed damages and less than the amount of the

        general liability limit, but greater than the amount of the uninsured motorist coverage limit.

               Virginia Code § 38.2-2206 mandates that an insurance policy’s uninsured motorist

        coverage limits must match the policy’s liability limits “unless any one named insured

        rejects the additional uninsured motorist coverage by notifying the insurer as provided in

        subsection B of § 38.2-2202.” Va. Code Ann. § 38.2-2206(A) (2022). Section 38.2-2202

        in turn provides specific language that a legally adequate notice from the insurer to the

        insured must include and what the insured must do to reduce the coverage limit. Id. § 38.2-

        2202(B). There is no dispute that Berkley complied with the notice requirement for

        “uninsured/underinsured coverage limits” pursuant to the statute. There is also no dispute

        that the insured properly limited the uninsured coverage to $70,000.

               With respect to underinsured coverage, § 38.2-2206 provides that the policy

               shall also provide underinsured motorist insurance coverage with limits that
               shall be equal to the uninsured motorist insurance coverage limits and shall
               obligate the insurer to make payment for bodily injury or property damage
               caused by the operation or use of an underinsured motor vehicle to the extent
               the vehicle is underinsured.

        Id. § 38.2-2206(A) (emphasis added). A notice requirement and reduction provision for

        underinsurance only applies if the policy seeks to “reduce any underinsured coverage

        payments by the bodily injury liability or property damage liability coverage available for

        payment.” Id.

               On its face, Appellant’s argument is straightforward. Appellant argues that because

        the document through which the insured reduced the coverage limit is titled “Virginia

        Selection of Lower Uninsured Motorists Coverage Limits,” and repeatedly references

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1462       Doc: 29            Filed: 10/19/2023   Pg: 4 of 4

        “uninsured motorist” coverage, while using the term “underinsured” only once, that

        document only reduced the insured’s uninsured motorist coverage limit.             Therefore,

        Appellant argues, the underinsured coverage limit remained at $1,000,000, equal to the

        policy’s general liability limit.

               Appellant is correct that the insurance policy does not alter underinsured coverage

        from the statutory default.         But Appellant overlooks that the statutory default sets

        underinsured motorist coverage equal to uninsured motorist coverage, not the policy’s

        general liability limit. See Va. Code Ann. § 38.2-2206(A) (stating that underinsured

        motorist coverage “shall be equal to the uninsured motorist coverage limits” (emphasis

        added)). Because the uninsured motorist coverage was properly limited to $70,000, and

        the policy does not provide for underinsured motorist coverage different from the statutory

        default, the district court correctly concluded that the applicable coverage limit is $70,000.

                                                       III.

               Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

        legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument

        would not aid in the decisional process.

                                                                                         AFFIRMED

                                                        4