Haliron Power LLC v. Fluor Daniel Caribbean, Incorporated

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 30, 2026
• Docket: 25-1441
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1441 Doc: 61 Filed: 03/30/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1441

HALIRON POWER LLC,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

FLUOR DANIEL CARIBBEAN, INC., a subsidiary of Fluor Enterprises, Inc.; ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY; FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY; FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (6:18-cv-02911-JD)

Submitted: February 19, 2026 Decided: March 30, 2026

Before KING, GREGORY, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Russell T. Burke, Columbia, South Carolina, Burl F. Williams, WILLIAMS BURKE LLP, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. N. Ward Lambert, D. Gregory Placone, Greenville, South Carolina, Taylor M. Morris, W. Greyson Land, P. Nicholas Nybo, HUDSON LAMBERT PARROT, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1441 Doc: 61 Filed: 03/30/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff Haliron Power LLC appeals from the adverse judgment of the District of

South Carolina, entered in favor of the defendants, Fluor Daniel Caribbean, Inc., Zurich

American Insurance Company, Federal Insurance Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety

Company, Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, and Liberty Mutual Insurance

Company (collectively “defendants”). Following a seven-day bench trial in Greenville in

January 2024, the district court issued its June 2024 bench verdict in favor of the defendants

on Haliron’s claims for breach of contract and quantum meruit, along with a payment bond

claim under the Miller Act, see 40 U.S.C. § 3131 et seq., and a claim for attorneys’ fees

and interest pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 27-1-15. See Haliron Power LLC v. Fluor Daniel

Caribbean, Inc., No. 6:18-cv-02911 (D.S.C. June 27, 2024), ECF No. 179 (the “Bench

Verdict”). Haliron timely moved for a reconsideration of the Bench Verdict, which the

court denied in March 2025. See Haliron Power LLC v. Fluor Daniel Caribbean, Inc., No.

6:18-cv-02911 (D.S.C. Mar. 28, 2025), ECF No. 189 (the “Reconsideration Ruling”).

On appeal, Haliron assails the Bench Verdict and the Reconsideration Ruling on

various and sundry grounds. To that end, an appeal from a judgment entered after a bench

trial is “subject to a mixed standard of review, pursuant to which we review legal

conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error.” See Va. Elec. & Power Co. v.

Bransen Energy, Inc., 850 F.3d 645, 654 (4th Cir. 2017). Importantly, as our Court has

heretofore recognized, we are not permitted to “reverse the district court’s findings simply

because we would have decided the case differently.” See Provident Life & Accident Ins.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1441 Doc: 61 Filed: 03/30/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

Co. v. Cohen, 423 F.3d 413, 418 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470

U.S. 564, 573 (1985)). Rather, a district court’s findings of fact after a bench trial can only

be deemed clearly erroneous if “the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the

definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” See HSBC Bank USA v.

F&M Bank N. Va., 246 F.3d 335, 338 (4th Cir. 2001) (citing Anderson, 470 U.S. at 573).

In these circumstances, having carefully assessed the record on appeal — as well as

the appellate submissions of the parties — we discern no reversible error concerning either

the Bench Verdict or the Reconsideration Ruling. Put simply, we are of opinion that the

capable district judge prudently and thoroughly analyzed the trial evidence in making his

detailed findings of fact, rendered legally sound conclusions of law based upon those

factual findings, and properly entered the contested judgment for the defendants.

Pursuant to the foregoing, we are therefore satisfied to affirm the contested

judgment on the well-reasoned opinions of the district court — that is, the court’s Bench

Verdict of June 2024 and the Reconsideration Ruling of March 2025.

AFFIRMED