Thomas D. Rogers, Iii; Victoria A. Rogers v. Stewart Title Guaranty Company

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1395
THOMAS D. ROGERS, III; VICTORIA A. ROGERS,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (2:07-cv-03998-CWH)
Submitted: December 20, 2011 Decided: January 5, 2012
Before MOTZ, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
R. Hawthorne Barrett, Thomas C. Salane, TURNER PADGET GRAHAM &
LANEY, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Christy
Ford Allen, John A. Massalon, WILLS MASSALON & ALLEN, LLC,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Stewart Title Guaranty Company (“Stewart Title”)
appeals the district court’s order in a declaratory judgment
action. After a bench trial, the district court found that
Stewart Title was required to indemnify Thomas and Victoria
Rogers for one million dollars under the terms of a title
insurance policy the Rogerses had purchased. We affirm.
This court “review[s] a judgment following a bench
trial under a mixed standard of review – factual findings may be
reversed only if clearly erroneous, while conclusions of law,
including contract construction, are examined de novo.” Roanoke
Cement Co., L.L.C. v. Falk Corp., 413 F.3d 431, 433 (4th Cir.
2005) (citations omitted). “[W]hen a district court’s factual
finding in a bench trial is based on assessments of witness
credibility, such finding is deserving of the highest degree of
appellate deference.” Evergreen Int’l v. Norfolk Dredging Co.,
531 F.3d 302, 308 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
We conclude that the district court did not err in
finding that the title risk created by the publicly dedicated
graveyard was covered by the Rogerses’ title insurance policy.
Further, the district court did not err in crediting testimony
establishing that the Rogerses’ damages exceeded the policy
limit. Accordingly, we affirm the declaratory judgment of the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
district court. 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 --