Barrett v. Wagenbrenner

<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2025-06-08"> <div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc"> <link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link> <div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-refglobal="case:jaynevpeopleofthestateofcoloradono24sc806june3,2025" data-content-heading-label="Header"><p class="ldml-metadata"> 1 </p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Timothy Allen Jayne</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></span> </b><b class="ldml-bold"> v. </b><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">The People of the State of Colorado</span>. <span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">No. 24SC806</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>, En Banc</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">June 3, 2025</b></span></p></div> <div class="ldml-casehistory"><p data-paragraph-id="157" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="157" data-sentence-id="174" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Court of Appeals</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_174" data-reftype="reporter"><span class="ldml-cite">Case No. 23CA1355</span></a></span></span> </p></div><div class="ldml-opinion content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="215" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="215" data-sentence-id="231" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Petition for Writ</span> of Certiorari DENIED.</span> </p></div></div></div> </div> </div>

<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2025-06-22"> <div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc"> <link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link> <div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-refglobal="case:hammondvpeopleofthestateofcoloradono25sc186june17,2025" data-content-heading-label="Header"><p class="ldml-metadata"> 1 </p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Garrett M. Hammond</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></span> </b><b class="ldml-bold"> v. </b><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">The People of the State of Colorado</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">No. 25SC186</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>, En Banc</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">June 17, 2025</b></span></p></div> <div class="ldml-casehistory"><p data-paragraph-id="157" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="157" data-sentence-id="174" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Court of Appeals</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_174" data-reftype="reporter"><span class="ldml-cite">Case No. 23CA294</span></a></span></span> </p></div><div class="ldml-opinion content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="214" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="214" data-sentence-id="230" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Petition for Writ</span> of Certiorari DENIED.</span> </p></div></div></div> </div> </div>

<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2025-06-22"> <div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc"> <link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link> <div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Header" data-refglobal="case:kolpakovvpeopleofthestateofcoloradono25sc171june16,2025"><p class="ldml-metadata"> 1 </p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Aleksandr Kolpakov</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></span> </b><b class="ldml-bold"> v. </b><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">The People of the State of Colorado</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">No. 25SC171</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>, En Banc</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">June 16, 2025</b></span></p></div> <div class="ldml-casehistory"><p data-paragraph-id="157" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="157" data-sentence-id="174" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Court of Appeals</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="reporter" data-prop-ids="sentence_174"><span class="ldml-cite">Case No. 23CA832</span></a></span></span> </p></div><div class="ldml-opinion content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="214" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="214" data-sentence-id="230" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Petition for Writ</span> of Certiorari DENIED.</span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="276" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="276" data-sentence-id="299" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity">HOOD</span></span> does not participate.</span> </p></div></div></div> </div> </div>

USCA4 Appeal: 24-2122 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/15/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-2122 EVELYN R. BENTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BERKSHIRE RICHMOND LLC, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, District Judge. (3:23-cv-00704-RCY) Submitted: July 30, 2025 Decided: August 15, 2025 Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Evelyn R. Benton, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Richard Waters, WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP, McLean, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-2122 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/15/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Evelyn R. Benton appeals the district court’s order granting Appellee’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss her complaint, in which she alleged a violation of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4851-4856, and the court’s order denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. Benton v. Berkshire Richmond LLC, No. 3:23-cv-00704-RCY (E.D. Va. Sep. 11, 2024; Nov. 5, 2024). 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 2

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1733 Doc: 46 Filed: 08/08/2025 Pg: 1 of 14 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-1733 J.H., by and through their Guardian Ad Litem, Erica Chambers; E.H., by and through their Guardian Ad Litem, Erica Chambers; ERICA CHAMBERS, individually, Plaintiff - Appellees, v. HARFORD MUTUAL INSURANCE GROUP, INC., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:21-cv-00856-LPA) Argued: March 18, 2025 Decided: August 8, 2025 Before HEYTENS and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and John A. GIBNEY, JR., Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ARGUED: William A. Bulfer, Asheville, North Carolina, Daniel Thomas Strong, TEAGUE CAMPBELL DENNIS & GORHAM, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellants. Coleman Cowan, LAW OFFICES OF JAMES SCOTT FARRIN, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Kaitelyn E. Fudge, LAW OFFICES OF JAMES SCOTT FARRIN, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1733 Doc: 46 Filed: 08/08/2025 Pg: 2 of 14 PER CURIAM: Erica Chambers was driving with her two minor children on the highway in North Carolina when they were hit by a truck owned by Big Boss Construction, Inc. After bringing suit against Big Boss and several other parties involved in the accident, Chambers filed a declaratory judgment action to establish that Big Boss’s $2 million commercial excess insurance policy—issued by Harford Mutual Insurance Group, Inc.—provided coverage for the accident. The district court sided with Chambers and concluded that the accident fell within the scope of the policy’s coverage. The district court further determined that Chambers and her children were entitled to pre- and post-judgment interest under the policy. We affirm both rulings. I. Background 1 On October 27, 2018, Erica Chambers and her children were severely injured in an automobile accident as they drove south on North Carolina Highway 49. A truck owned by Big Boss Construction, Inc. crossed the center of the highway and struck Chambers head on. The driver of the truck was unauthorized to operate a motor vehicle, as he lacked a valid driver’s license. The parties agree that at the time of the accident, the driver was an agent of Big Boss acting within the scope of his employment. The driver was on his way 1 In the litigation agreement discussed infra, the parties “agree[d] that all facts and conclusions of law pled in the Second Amended Complaint in the Underlying Litigation are deemed admitted” for the purpose of this declaratory judgment action. J.A. 207. We thus recite the facts as alleged in that complaint. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1733 Doc: 46 Filed: 08/08/2025 Pg: 3 of 14 to complete a job for a different company, NC Champions Construction, Inc., which was using the truck with Big Boss’s permission. Chambers and her children incurred astronomical medical bills as a result of the accident. Chambers spent 34 days in the hospital recovering from broken bones throughout her body. She endured multiple surgeries and remains under medical care for her injuries, some of which are permanent. One of Chambers’s children suffered a head injury and continues to experience memory problems. Her other child suffered a broken leg. In total, the family’s medical bills have exceeded $500,000. Chambers and her children (collectively, Chambers 2) filed suit in North Carolina state court against the driver, Big Boss, and NC Champions. The suit alleged, among other claims, that Big Boss was liable for negligently entrusting its truck to the driver. At the time of the accident, Big Boss carried multiple insurance policies, including a commercial excess umbrella policy (the Excess Policy) issued by Harford Mutual Insurance Group, Inc. The Excess Policy had a liability limit of $2 million. It co