**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 1533** 
KATHRYN T. HOLLIS; ANDRE D. HOLLIS; M.H., an infant, by and through his father and next friend, Andre D. Hollis , Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,
v. 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 Stat es District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. James C. Cacheris , Senior District Judge. ( 1:15

- cv - 00290

- JCC

- JFA )

Submitted : March 3, 2017 Decided: March 22, 2017

Before NIEMEYER and KING , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Nathan D. Rozsa, Scott A. Surovell, SUROVELL ISAACS PETERSEN & LEVY PLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant s . 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 Robert Yates, III , O’ HAGAN MEYER PLLC , Richmond , Virginia, for Appellee Axis Surplus Insurance Company, Inc.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Kathryn Hollis and her two sons received injure s from a fireworks explosion. 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 underlying complaint alleges a single occurrence or 19 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 ag gregate. In the present declaratory judgment action, t he district court, ruling on cross

- motions for summary judgment, found that the underlying complaint alleged one occurrence. We agree and thus affirm. We review a district court’s resolution of cross

- motions for summary judgment de novo. Rossignol v. Voorhaar , 316 F.3d 516, 523 (4th Cir. 2003). A district court may only award summary judgment when no genuine dispute of material fact remains and the record shows that the moving party is entitled
t o judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).4 Here, the district court resolved the cross

- motions in favor of the insurer, Lexington. * The dispute is subject to Pennsylvania law. In the liability insurance context, Pennsylvania law applies a cause approach to defining occurrences. Donegal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Baumhammers , 938 A.2d 286, 293 (Pa. 2007). Under the cause approach, Pennsylvania courts find a single occurrence if there “wa s but one proximate, uninterrupted, and continuing cause which resulted in all of the injuries and damage.” 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 al leged negligent acts or victims, the injuries have a single proximate cause

— the misfired firework that exploded near Kathryn and her sons. See Baumhammers , 938 A.2d at 296. Because the injuries only have one cause, only one occurrence took place.
Accor dingly, we affirm the district court’s order resolving the cross

- motions for summary judgment in Lexington’s favor. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

* The district court found the claim against the excess insurer, Axis, non

- justiciable. The Hollises have not challenged that ruling on appeal.5 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argu ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED