-
Opinions of the United 2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-17-2005 Schultz v. Encompass Ins Co Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-3945 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005 Recommended Citation "Schultz v. Encompass Ins Co" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 397. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/397 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No: 04-3945 JASON SCHULTZ, Appellant v. ENCOMPASS INSURANCE COMPANY Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Civ. No. 03-cv-03936) District Judge: Hon. Juan R. Sanchez Submitted pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Friday, September 23, 2005 Before: ROTH, McKEE and FISHER, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: October 17, 2005) OPINION McKEE, Circuit Judge. Jason Schultz was injured in an automobile accident and sought a declaratory judgment that he is covered under an automobile insurance policy Encompass Insurance issued to his grandparents, Loretta and Paul V. Schultz. Following a non-jury trial, the district court found that Schultz is not covered by the policy because he was not a resident of his grandparents’ household at the time of the accident, as required by the terms of the 1 policy. Accordingly, the district court entered judgment in favor of Encompass, and this appeal followed, and we will affirm. Inasmuch as the district court has set forth the factual and procedural history of this case, we find it unnecessary to repeat that history here. See Schultz v. Encompass Insurance,
2004 WL 2075114(E.D. Pa. Sept. 16, 2004). Moreover, in his thoughtful Memorandum and Opinion, Judge Sanchez has carefully and completely explained his reasons for finding that Schultz is not covered under his grandparents’ policy. We can add little to Judge Sanchez’ searching analysis, and the arguments raised on appeal do not merit further discussion. Accordingly, we will affirm the district court substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court’s Memorandum and Order without further discussion. 2
Document Info
Docket Number: 04-3945
Citation Numbers: 145 F. App'x 397
Filed Date: 10/17/2005
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023