J. Carolyn Stringer v. Unum Life Insurance Company

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-2174
J. CAROLYN STRINGER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CA-01-4536-3-17)
Submitted: May 12, 2003 Decided: May 21, 2003
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Carolyn Stringer, Appellant Pro Se. John Bowman McLeod,
HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
J. Carolyn Stringer appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment in favor of UNUM Life Insurance Co. on
her claim that UNUM breached the terms of her disability insurance
contract when it retroactively terminated her disability policy and
her claim that the termination was in bad faith.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Higgins v.
E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988).
Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no material facts
in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 322 (1986). We view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 255 (1986).
We have reviewed the record and conclude the district court
properly concluded UNUM did not breach the contract by
retroactively terminating it because Stringer had not met minimum
work requirements for coverage. Because UNUM had a contractual
right to cancel the policy, Stringer cannot prove bad faith. See
Pitts v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 574 S.E.2d 502, 512-13 (S.C.
Ct. App. 2002). Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the
reasoning of the district court. See Stringer v. UNUM Life Ins.
Co., No. CA-01-4536-3-17 (D.S.C. filed Sept. 4, 2002; entered Sept.
6, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

-- 2 of 3 --

3
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --