Lancer Insurance Company v. David Snyder

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1463
LANCER INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
and
VIP LIMOUSINE SERVICES, LTD.; GLEN M. LEE, d/b/a VIP
Limousine, Ltd.; LEE JAMES CRAWFORD,
Defendants - Appellees,
v.
DAVID SNYDER and MARY SNYDER, Personal Representatives of
the estate of Michael C. Snyder,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh,
District Judge. (3:11-cv-00111-GMG)
Submitted: August 2, 2013 Decided: December 5, 2013
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
F. Samuel Byrer, Peter A. Pentony, LAW OFFICE OF F. SAMUEL
BYRER, PLLC, Charles Town, West Virginia, for Appellants.
Michael E. Lang, MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN, Beaver, Pennsylvania, for

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Appellee Lancer Insurance Company. Daniel R. Schuda, Karen E.
Klein, SCHUDA & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellees VIP Limousine Services, Ltd., and Glen M. Lee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Lancer Insurance Company (“Lancer”) brought this
declaratory judgment action against VIP Limousine Service, Ltd.;
Glen M. Lee d/b/a VIP Limousine, Ltd.; and David and Mary Snyder
(“the Snyders”) as personal representatives of the estate of
their deceased son Michael C. Snyder (“Michael”). In its
action, Lancer sought a determination that it was not required
to indemnify Lee Crawford for liability arising out of an
accident that occurred when a vehicle Crawford was driving
struck and killed Michael. The Snyders filed a counterclaim
seeking to collect on a state-court judgment they had previously
obtained against Crawford based on his negligence in causing the
accident. The district court granted summary judgment against
the Snyders and in favor of Lancer and the other parties. See
Lancer Ins. Co. v. VIP Limousine Serv., Ltd., No. 3:11-CV-111,
2013 WL 937735 (N.D. W. Va. Mar. 11, 2013).
The Snyders now appeal. We have reviewed the record and
have found no error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of
the district court. See id. 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

-- 3 of 3 --