Opinion
No. 15-1737 No. 15-1764
03-08-2016
ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PHILLIP R. BRYANT, Defendant - Appellant, and LARRY J. OETTER, Defendant. ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LARRY J. OETTER, Defendant - Appellant, and PHILLIP R. BRYANT, Defendant.
Glenn A. Barfield, HAITHCOCK, BARFIELD, HULSE & KINSEY, PLLC, Goldsboro, North Carolina; Evan G. Lewis, Washington, North Carolina, for Appellants. Jeffrey B. Kuykendal, MCANGUS, GOUDELOCK & COURIE, LLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (4:14-cv-00090-BR) Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glenn A. Barfield, HAITHCOCK, BARFIELD, HULSE & KINSEY, PLLC, Goldsboro, North Carolina; Evan G. Lewis, Washington, North Carolina, for Appellants. Jeffrey B. Kuykendal, MCANGUS, GOUDELOCK & COURIE, LLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
In these joint appeals, Phillip R. Bryant and Larry J. Oetter challenge the district court's orders granting summary judgment to Allstate Indemnity Company ("Allstate") and declaring that Allstate has no obligation to defend or indemnify Oetter in Bryant's state court action against him. We have reviewed de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment, see Pryor v. United Air Lines, Inc., 791 F.3d 488, 495 (4th Cir. 2015) (stating standard of review), and agree with the district court that Allstate was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Appellants' arguments to the contrary are not persuasive. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Allstate Indem. Co. v. Bryant, No. 4:14-cv-00090-BR (E.D.N.C. June 9, 2015); Allstate Indem. Co. v. Oetter, No. 4:14-cv-00090-BR (E.D.N.C. June 9, 2015). We 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