Golden Corral Corp.; Golden Corral Franchising Systems, Inc. v. Illinois Union Insurance Company

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-2119
GOLDEN CORRAL CORP.; GOLDEN CORRAL FRANCHISING SYSTEMS,
INC.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:20-cv-00349-D)
Submitted: July 20, 2022 Decided: August 11, 2022
Before AGEE and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Gregg McDougal, Lawrence R. Duke, William R. Hartzell, MCDOUGAL
LAW FIRM, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellants. Robert W. Fisher, James M.
Bauer, CLYDE & CO US LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; Jennifer A. Welch, Theodore B. Smyth,
CRANFILL SUMNER LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Jonathan D. Hacker, Jenya Godina,
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Golden Corral Corporation and Golden Corral Franchising Systems, Inc.
(hereinafter referred to collectively as “Golden Corral”), appeal the district court’s order
granting Illinois Union Insurance Company’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) motion for judgment
on the pleadings in Golden Corral’s action seeking insurance benefits for business losses
Golden Corral incurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Golden
Corral Corp. v. Ill. Union Ins. Co., No. 5:20-cv-00349-D (E.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 2021); see
also Uncork & Create LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 27 F.4th 926, 933-34 (4th Cir. 2022)
(holding that insurance “policy’s coverage for business income loss and other expenses
d[id] not apply to [plaintiff’s] claim for financial losses [caused by the COVID-19
pandemic] in the absence of any material destruction or material harm to its covered
premises” and further “observ[ing] that our holding is consistent with the unanimous
decisions by our sister circuits, which have applied various states’ laws to similar insurance
claims and policy provisions”).
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 of 2 --