Dorothy A. Schrock; Schrock, Incorporated v. Lancer Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1300
DOROTHY A. SCHROCK; SCHROCK, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
and
LARRY R. SCHROCK,
Plaintiff,
v.
LANCER INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Wisconsin Corporation;
HERTZ CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson,
District Judge. (5:09-cv-00059-sgw-jgw)
Submitted: January 30, 2012 Decided: February 16, 2012
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
John J. Rasmussen, INSURANCE RECOVERY LAW GROUP, PLC, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellants. William N. Watkins, SANDS ANDERSON
PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Dorothy A. Schrock (“Dorothy”) and Schrock,
Incorporated, appeal from the district court’s declaratory
judgment, entered after a bench trial, that a business
automobile insurance policy issued by Lancer Insurance Company
(“Lancer”) does not afford underinsured motorist coverage to
Dorothy and Larry Schrock for injuries they suffered in an
automobile collision. Appellants assert error in the district
court’s determination that Lancer was not required by Va. Code
Ann. § 38.2-2206 (Supp. 2011) to afford such coverage to
Dorothy. We affirm.
On appeal from a bench trial, we review the district
court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of
law de novo. Roanoke Cement Co. v. Falk Corp., 413 F.3d 431,
433 (4th Cir. 2005). After review of the record, we hold that
the district court properly concluded that Lancer was not
required by § 38.2-2206 to afford uninsured or underinsured
motorist coverage to Dorothy, an insured of the second class
under Virginia law who was present in a vehicle not listed in
Lancer’s insurance policy. Stone v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 478
S.E.2d 883, 886 (Va. 1996) (stating that § 38.2-2206 “only
requires, as to insureds of the second class, that uninsured
motorist coverage be provided to those who are in . . . the
motor vehicles listed in the policy, as opposed to ‘any’ vehicle

-- 3 of 4 --

4
to which the policy might apply”) (“Stone I”); see also Stone v.
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 105 F.3d 188, 189-90, 192 (4th Cir. 1997)
(applying Stone I and holding that employee was not entitled to
uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage by operation of
§ 38.2-2206 for injury occurring while employee was operating
his personal vehicle in the scope of his employment because the
vehicle — although covered under the employer’s liability policy
when used in connection with the employer’s business — was not
listed in the policy).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
declaratory judgment. 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

-- 4 of 4 --