Mutual Benefit Insurance v. McDonald

Fourth Circuit

Mutual Benefit Insurance v. McDonald

59 F. App'x 601

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 25, 2003

Docket02-2062

StatusUnpublished

This text of 59 F. App'x 601 (Mutual Benefit Insurance v. McDonald) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mutual Benefit Insurance v. McDonald, 59 F. App'x 601 (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Clifford McDonald appeals the district court’s order entering a declaratory judgment in favor of Mutual Benefit Insurance Co. on its claim that Michael Kelly was a non-permissive user of a vehicle owned by Multi-Complex Contractors that Kelly was driving during a motor vehicle accident on June 24, 2000. McDonald also appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to alter or amend judgment and for a new trial. We affirm.

We review the district court’s conclusions of law de novo, and its findings of facts for clear error. Minyard Enter., Inc. v. Southeastern Chem. & Solvent Co., 184 F.3d 373, 380 (4th Cir.1999); Fed. R.Civ.P. 52(a). We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendix, and the supplemental joint appendix and conclude the district court properly entered judgment in favor of Mutual Benefit because Kelly was operating the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of Multi-Complex policy and therefore was a non-permissive user of the vehicle. See Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth. v. Bullock, 68 Md.App. 20, 509 A.2d 1217, 1225 (Md.Ct.Spec.App.1986). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Mutual Benefit Ins. Co. v. McDonald, No. CA-01-1129-L (D. Md. July 12, 2002 & Sept. 4, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Clifford McDonald appeals the district court’s order entering a declaratory judgment in favor of Mutual Benefit Insurance Co. on its claim that Michael Kelly was a non-permissive user of a vehicle owned by Multi-Complex Contractors that Kelly was driving during a motor vehicle accident on June 24, 2000. McDonald also appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to alter or amend judgment and for a new trial. We affirm.

We review the district court’s conclusions of law de novo, and its findings of facts for clear error. Minyard Enter., Inc. v. Southeastern Chem. & Solvent Co., 184 F.3d 373, 380 (4th Cir.1999); Fed. R.Civ.P. 52(a). We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendix, and the supplemental joint appendix and conclude the district court properly entered judgment in favor of Mutual Benefit because Kelly was operating the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of Multi-Complex policy and therefore was a non-permissive user of the vehicle. See Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth. v. Bullock, 68 Md.App. 20, 509 A.2d 1217, 1225 (Md.Ct.Spec.App.1986). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Mutual Benefit Ins. Co. v. McDonald, No. CA-01-1129-L (D. Md. July 12, 2002 & Sept. 4, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 F. App'x 601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mutual-benefit-insurance-v-mcdonald-ca4-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack