Brent J. Griffith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1806
BRENT J. GRIFFITH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:12-cv-00239-DCN)
Submitted: January 30, 2013 Decided: February 11, 2013
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George J. Kefalos, Michelle N. Endemann, GEORGE J. KEFALOS, PA,
Charleston, South Carolina; Brian C. Duffy, DUFFY & YOUNG, LLC,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas W. Curvin,
Molley J. Clarkson, SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN, LLP, Atlanta,
Georgia; Charles R. Norris, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH,
LLP, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Brent J. Griffith appeals the district court’s order
granting the Defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion. On
appeal, Griffith raises the issues of whether “South Carolina
law imposes a duty on insurers to pay legal interest on covered
claims under a homeowners insurance policy irrespective of
whether an insured has obtained a judgment against the insurer
on a breach of contract or duty related to the claim” and
whether such interest is paid from the date of loss. We affirm.
“We review de novo a district court’s decision to
dismiss for failure to state a claim, assuming all well-pleaded,
nonconclusory factual allegations in the complaint to be true.”
Aziz v. Alcolac, Inc., 658 F.3d 388, 391 (4th Cir. 2011). A
Rule 12(b)(6) motion challenges the legal sufficiency of the
complaint. Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 192 (4th Cir.
2009). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the complaint must
“‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the
district court did not err in granting the Defendant’s motion to
dismiss the complaint. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. See Griffith v. State Farm Fire &
Cas. Co., No. 2:12-cv-00239-DCN (D.S.C. June 7, 2012). We

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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 --