by KPMLAW | Jul 2, 2020 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized, Updates
It’s a new day in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Bill Pfund reviews new laws affecting the insurance industry as well as those of general interest in the presentation below. View the slides or click here to watch the recording. ...
by KPMLAW | Jul 2, 2020 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
Written by Randall C. Lenhart, Jr. Edited by Bill Pfund Virginia does not require motor vehicle liability coverage for its motorists. Instead, Virginia motorists are free to choose whether or not to purchase liability insurance for their vehicles. But if they decide not to insure their vehicles they must pay a $500 “uninsured motorist fee” at the time of registration of the uninsured vehicle. Virginia does require though that all certified motor vehicle liability policies issued or delivered in the Commonwealth provide minimum insurance coverage to the insured in the amount of $25,000 because of bodily injury to or death of one person in any one accident and in the amount of $50,000 because of bodily injury to or death of two or more persons in any one accident. Virginia also requires minimum coverage of $20,000 for property damage. These minimum limits are codified in Virginia Code § 46.2-472 and have been set in the current amounts for over 30 years. Earlier this year, SB 664 was introduced which would have increased the minimum motor vehicle liability insurance coverage limits from $25,000 to $100,000 in cases of bodily injury to or death of one person, from $50,000 to $200,000 in cases of bodily injury to or death of more than one person in any one accident, and from $20,000 to $40,000 for property damage coverage. The Senate Transportation Committee amended the Bill to reduce the increases from $25,000 to $35,000 in cases of bodily injury to or death of one person and from $50,000 to $70,000 in cases of bodily injury to or death of more than one person...
by KPMLAW | Jun 26, 2020 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
Written by Delia deBlass, Esq. Edited by Bill Pfund, Esq. When a foreign object is found in a food product, a Plaintiff will typically bring their claim under a products liability action. Plaintiff has the option of bringing two different, but intertwined claims: negligence and/or breach of implied warranty of merchantability. But is there a difference in the claims, and does it matter? Negligence in this instance is a well-known concept, in that the Plaintiff has to prove duty, fault, causation and damages. There are three different types of negligence that can apply with products liability: (1) negligent design; (2) negligent manufacture; or (3) negligent failure to warn. With foreign objects in food, negligent failure to warn is most often pled. A negligence claim will focus on the conduct of the food product supplier in failing to warn users of dangers that could come about by the product’s use. That being said, a plaintiff can also bring a breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim. The implied warranty of merchantability is a claim that has roots in both Virginia case law and Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) as adopted by Virginia. Article 2 of the UCC deals with consumer transactions. Section 2-314 of the UCC provides the definition for merchantability of goods, which states that (among other things) merchantable goods must be “fit for the ordinary purpose for which such goods are used” and “adequately contained, packaged, and labeled”. (See UCC §2-314 (2)(c), (2)(e).) The elements of a breach of implied warranty of merchantability are that goods sold were unreasonably dangerous for use to which they...
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 | 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...
by KPMLAW | May 11, 2020 | Covid, KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized, Updates
Written by Janeen Koch, Esq. & Gary Reinhardt, Esq. As the country reels from the devastating impacts caused by COVID-19, commercial property insurance carriers are being inundated with claims – primarily those for business interruption losses. These claims are, for the most part, being denied. Many commercial insurance policies, including those that include business interruption coverage, do not include coverage for viruses such as COVID-19. After the SARS outbreak in 2003, Mandarin Oriental International Ltd. received $16 million from a settlement with its insurers to pay for business interruption losses due to the outbreak. Insurance carriers responded by adding endorsements to their policies excluding coverage for “loss or damage caused by or resulting from any virus, bacterium or other microorganism that induces or is capable of inducing physical distress, illness or disease.” Based upon this exclusionary language, business interruption losses due to COVID-19 would almost certainly be excluded under the clear and unambiguous language of the policy. However, for those policies that do not contain such an exclusion, it is less clear whether business interruption claims would be excluded from coverage. To obtain coverage under a commercial property policy, the insured must demonstrate “direct physical damage” to the property caused by a covered loss. Typically, such losses covered under these policies include damage caused by fire or natural disasters such as earthquakes or hurricanes. In some instances, coverage may be afforded when the property is not accessible or habitable due to damage to properties in the surrounding area. For example, coverage has been provided for businesses that must close due to a chemical spill at a neighboring property. Although...
