Summit Hospitality Group, Ltd v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1789 Doc: 36 Filed: 07/15/2026 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1789

SUMMIT HOSPITALITY GROUP, LTD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:20-cv-00254-BO)

Submitted: March 2, 2026 Decided: July 15, 2026

Before RUSHING, HEYTENS, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Gregg E. McDougal, William R. Hartzell, MCDOUGAL HARTZELL, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Daniel G. Litchfield, Brian M. Reid, Laurence J.W. Tooth, LITCHFIELD CAVO, LLP, Chicago, Illinois; T. Nicholas Goanos, BUTLER WEIHMULLER KATZ CRAIG LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1789 Doc: 36 Filed: 07/15/2026 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Summit Hospitality manages and develops several hotels and restaurants in the State

of North Carolina. Following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, Summit suffered

financial losses resulting from government-mandated closures. Summit sought coverage

for these losses from its insurer, Cincinnati Insurance Company.

After Cincinnati denied coverage, Summit filed an action in North Carolina state

court, seeking monetary damages and a declaration that its losses were covered under its

insurance policy with Cincinnati. Cincinnati removed the case to federal court pursuant to

diversity jurisdiction and moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief

could be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The district court granted Cincinnati’s motion. Applying the substantive law of

North Carolina, the district court ruled that Summit had failed to demonstrate that it was

entitled to relief. Summit Hosp. Grp., Ltd. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 5:20-CV-254-BO,

2021 WL 831013, at *4 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 4, 2021). This court affirmed. Summit Hosp. Grp.,

Ltd. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 21-1362, 2022 WL 2072759 (4th Cir. June 9, 2022).

Three years after the district court granted Cincinnati’s 12(b)(6) motion and

Summit’s case was dismissed with prejudice, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued a

ruling in North State Deli, LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., a case brought by dining

establishments seeking insurance coverage for business income losses arising out of

COVID-19 government shut-down orders. 908 S.E.2d 802 (N.C. 2024). In North State

Deli, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that the term “direct physical loss,” as defined

by the dining establishments’ insurance policy, includes losses incurred when property “is

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1789 Doc: 36 Filed: 07/15/2026 Pg: 3 of 4

no longer usable for its insured purpose, as a policyholder would reasonably expect.” Id.

at 810. Accordingly, the dining establishments’ losses were covered under the policy. Id.

at 812–13.

Following the North State Deli ruling, Summit filed a motion for relief from the

prior ruling dismissing its case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). The

district court denied Summit’s motion, finding that Summit had failed to demonstrate

extraordinary circumstances, a condition of Rule 60(b)(6) relief. Summit Hosp. Grp., Ltd.

v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 5:20-CV-254-BO, 2025 WL 1671371 (E.D.N.C. June 12, 2025).

This appeal followed.

Summit Hospitality argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying its

Rule 60(b)(6) motion. We disagree. Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and the record

and in light of this court’s decision in Golden Corral v. Ill. Union Ins. Co., No. 25-1682

(4th Cir. July 15, 2026), we conclude that the district court acted well within its discretion.

Though, unlike in Golden Corral, the insurer in this case and the insurer in North

State Deli are one and the same, the remaining relevant facts and circumstances differ. Like

in Golden Corral, Summit’s case does not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence

as that in North State Deli, nor can it be said that the two cases are closely related. The

losses suffered by Summit are not the same losses as those suffered by the plaintiffs in

North State Deli. Moreover, while Summit contends that the policies at issue are

“materially similar,” the cases concern claims arising under different insurance policies.

We see no reason to depart from our circuit precedent that “a mere change in decisional

3 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1789 Doc: 36 Filed: 07/15/2026 Pg: 4 of 4

law—without more—does not provide a basis for Rule 60(b)(6) relief.” Golden Corral,

slip op. at 7 (citing Moses v. Joyner, 815 F.3d 163, 168–69 (4th Cir. 2016)).

Having discerned no abuse of discretion, we affirm the ruling of the district court

denying Summit’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion.

AFFIRMED