Kathryn Hollis v. Lexington Insurance Company
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00290-JCC-JFA. Copies to all parties and the district court. . Mailed to: Jacqueline Gass & Kimmel Schaefer (Schaefer Pyrotechnics). [16-1533]
Pg: 1 of 5
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
KATHRYN T. HOLLIS; ANDRE D. HOLLIS; M.H., an infant, by and
through his father and next friend, Andre D. Hollis,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY; AXIS SURPLUS INSURANCE COMPANY,
INC., d/b/a Axis, d/b/a Axis Insurance, d/b/a Axis Capital,
d/b/a Axis U.S. Insurance; SCHAEFER PYROTECHNICS, INC.;
KIMMEL R. SCHAEFER; JACQUELINE M. GASS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:15-cv-00290-JCC-JFA)
March 3, 2017
March 22, 2017
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nathan D. Rozsa, Scott A. Surovell, SUROVELL ISAACS PETERSEN &
LEVY PLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellants. Paul D. Smolinsky,
JACKSON & CAMPBELL, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellee
Lexington Insurance Company.
H. Robert Yates, III, O’HAGAN
MEYER PLLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee Axis Surplus
Insurance Company, Inc.
Pg: 2 of 5
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 3 of 5
Kathryn Hollis and her two sons received injures from a
The underlying state court action alleges
that the fireworks company, its president, and another employee
committed 19 breaches of duty that resulted in M.H.’s injuries.
The issue in this declaratory judgment action is whether the
occurrences under the fireworks company’s applicable insurance
policy with Lexington Insurance Company.
The policy covers up
to $1 million per occurrence and $2 million in the aggregate.
In the present declaratory judgment action, the district
court, ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, found that
the underlying complaint alleged one occurrence.
We agree and
We review a district court’s resolution of cross-motions
for summary judgment de novo.
516, 523 (4th Cir. 2003).
Rossignol v. Voorhaar, 316 F.3d
A district court may only award
remains and the record shows that the moving party is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
Pg: 4 of 5
favor of the insurer, Lexington. *
The dispute is subject to
applies a cause approach to defining occurrences.
Ins. Co. v. Baumhammers, 938 A.2d 286, 293 (Pa. 2007).
the cause approach, Pennsylvania courts find a single occurrence
if there “was but one proximate, uninterrupted, and continuing
D’Auria v. Zurich Ins. Co., 507 A.2d 857, 860 (Pa. Super. Ct.
1986); see also Baumhammers, 938 A.2d at 294-95.
Here, regardless of the number of alleged negligent acts or
misfired firework that exploded near Kathryn and her sons.
Baumhammers, 938 A.2d at 296.
Because the injuries only have
one cause, only one occurrence took place.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order resolving
the cross-motions for summary judgment in Lexington’s favor.
The district court found the claim against the excess
challenged that ruling on appeal.
Pg: 5 of 5
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?