by KPMLAW | Jun 23, 2020 | Court, KPMBlog, News, Updates
The Sixth Order Extending Declaration of Judicial Emergency In Response to Covid-19 Emergency entered by the Virginia Supreme Court was entered yesterday. Highlights are offered below. You can review the entire Order here. The Declaration of Judicial Emergency is EXTENDED until July 19, 2020 Statutes of Limitations and case related deadlines (except for discovery deadlines) continue to be tolled during period of Judicial Emergency. While video conferencing and telephonic hearings are preferred, Courts may hear in-person non-emergency matters and non-jury cases if they determine it is safe to do so. Still not necessary for a party to obtain the agreement of any other party to bring a pre-trial motion before the court set a non-jury trial. Facemasks required Continuances and excuses for failure to appear shall be liberally granted for reasons resulting from impact of Covid-19 Jury trials remain suspended and no jury trials shall take place for the duration of this Order. Jury trials after July 19 are subject to a further period of suspension if the Declaration of Judicial Emergency is extended. Judge Lemons has appointed a Task Force to address the reinstatement of jury trials in the...
by KPMLAW | Jun 8, 2020 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
Written by Claire Cafritz Carr, Esq. Edited by Rachel A. Riordan, Esq. A new workers’ compensation law recently passed in Virginia will go into effect on July 1st and will impact employers and carriers at the outset of a work related accident. The new law is §65.2-601.2 and it provides that once an employee files a claim for benefits under §65.2-601 (addressing the time limit for filing a claim) the Commission shall issue an order to the employer to advise the employee within 30 days whether the claim will be accepted or denied and the reasons for any denial. If a decision can’t be made due to a lack of information, the specific information required to make a decision must be provided. The notice to the employee can be sent to the employee by email if he or she consents. Here is the link to the statute: https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+ful+CHAP1086+pdf § 65.2-601.2. Notice to employee of employer’s intent. A. Whenever an employee makes a claim pursuant to § 65.2-601, the Commission shall order the employer to advise the employee, within 30 days following the date of such order, whether the employer (i) intends to accept the claim, (ii) intends to deny the claim, or (iii) is unable to determine whether it intends to accept or deny the claim because the employer lacks sufficient information from the employee or a third party to make such determination. If the employer responds that it intends to deny the claim, the response shall provide reasons therefor. If the employer responds that it is unable to determine whether it intends to accept or deny the claim...
by KPMLAW | Jun 4, 2020 | Court, KPMBlog, News, Updates
Linked here, please see the Public Notice from the Chesterfield J&DR Court and the Fourth Revised Order, entered today, from the Chesterfield GDC Pursuant to the Extension of Declaration of Judicial...
by KPMLAW | Jun 2, 2020 | Court, KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized, Updates
Please click here to view the 5th Order from the Virginia Supreme Court, entered June 1, 2020, Modifying and Extending the Declaration of Judicial...
by KPMLAW | May 19, 2020 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized, Updates
Written by Matthew Liller, Esq. Edited by Bill Pfund, Esq. The Supreme Court of Virginia recently clarified that a plaintiff who reaches a pretrial settlement with their underinsured motorist (“UIM”) carrier is still entitled to receive the full amount of a subsequent jury verdict from the defendant. Llewellyn v. White, 297 Va. 588 (2019). In Llewellyn, the plaintiff was seriously injured in an automobile accident. The plaintiff had $1 million in UIM coverage, while the defendant had $250,000 in liability coverage. Prior to trial, the plaintiff settled her potential claims against her UIM carrier for $750,000. A release of all claims was given to the UIM carrier only, and the UIM carrier agreed to waive subrogation. The then went to trial and the jury awarded plaintiff $1.5 million in damages against the defendant. The defendant moved to reduce the verdict and apply Virginia’s statutory offset from the plaintiff’s $750,000 settlement with the UIM carrier, meaning she would only be responsible for the $750,000 difference. Va. Code § 8.01-35.1 provides, in pertinent part, that when a release is given to one of two or more persons liable for the same injury, any amount recovered against the other person(s) shall be reduced by the amount stipulated by the release. The trial court declined to reduce the verdict. The Supreme Court of Virginia first determined that a UIM carrier is not a “person liable for the same injury,” as its obligation to pay arises only from contract, not from tort. The jury found that the defendant failed to exercise ordinary care, and that failure caused the plaintiff to suffer personal injuries. Because...
