Hoang Do v. Liberty Insurance Corporation

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1063
HOANG DO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:12-cv-00619-RBS)
Submitted: June 7, 2013 Decided: July 2, 2013
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
C. Broughton Shedlick, C. BROUGHTON SHEDLICK, PLLC, Falls
Church, Virginia, for Appellant. E. Ford Stephens, CHRISTIAN &
BARTON, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
This appeal arises out of an automobile accident between
Hoang Do and Gerson Arias. Because Arias allegedly was both at
fault and underinsured, Do submitted a uninsured motorist claim
to his automotive insurance provider, Liberty Insurance Company.
Liberty did not respond to Do’s case for months, and ultimately
rejected the claim. In the interim, Do had settled and signed a
release of rights with Arias and his insurer, and the statute of
limitations lapsed for any tort claims related to the accident.
Do then brought this action against Liberty claiming that
in its delay in acting on, and ultimate rejecting, his uninsured
motorist claim, Liberty “acted in its own best interests and
against the interests of its insured, i.e.[,] in bad faith.” JA
10.
The district court dismissed Do’s complaint for failure to
state a claim. The court held that Do failed to state a claim
for recovery from Liberty under the uninsured motorist provision
because Do had not secured a judgment against Arias. The
district court also held that Do failed to state a bad faith
claim against Liberty because Liberty was Do’s adversary in the
uninsured motorist claim, and thus had no duty to act in good
faith toward Do with regard to the claim. Do only appeals the
second holding.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Under Virginia law, once an insured files an uninsured
motorist claim with its insurer, the “insurer and insured
assume[] an adversary relationship.” Maxey v. Doe, 225 S.E.2d
359, 362 (Va. 1976). Pursuant to this relationship, the insurer
is “under no obligation to furnish [its insured] with
information.” Truman v. Spivey, 302 S.E.2d 517, 520 (Va. 1983).
In this regard, under the facts alleged in Do’s complaint,
Liberty had no duty to inform Do that uninsured motorist
coverage required the existence of a judgment against the
underinsured motorist. Va. Code Ann. § 38.2-2206(a); see also
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Kelly, 380 S.E.2d 654, 656
(Va. 1989); Midwest Mut. Ins. Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 223
S.E.2d 901, 904 (Va. 1976). Nor did Liberty have a duty to
inform Do that, if he settled and signed a release of rights
with Arias and his insurer, it would rely on the settlement to
deny uninsured motorist coverage. See Maxey, 225 S.E.2d at 362.
Because Liberty had no duty to act in good faith toward Do
with regard to his uninsured motorist claim, the district court
did not err in holding that Do’s complaint failed to state a
plausible claim for a bad faith action against Liberty. 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 the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --