The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
10-1958•Jacqueline Moore, individually v. Life Insurance Company of North America, a foreign corporation
10-1958Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJul 15, 2011
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1958
JACQUELINE MOORE, individually and as administrator of the
Estate of Keith Karwacki, deceased,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, a foreign
corporation; CIGNA CORPORATION, d/b/a Cigna Group Insurance,
a foreign corporation,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation,
Defendant,
v.
SHARON L. KARWACKI; DEBORAH NAUGHTON,
Third Party Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:05-cv-00169-FPS)
Submitted: May 24, 2011 Decided: July 15, 2011
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brent K. Kesner, Ellen R. Archibald, KESNER, KESNER & BRAMBLE,
PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. John C. Lynch,
TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Jon S. Hubbard,
TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Jacqueline Moore appeals the district court’s order
granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment
and the court’s order denying her motion to reconsider. We have
reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and
conclude there is no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. Moore v. Life
Ins. Co. of N. Am., No. 5:05-cv-00169-FPS (N.D. W. Va. Mar. 25,
2010; July 28, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.