by KPMLAW | Sep 8, 2020 | Uncategorized
The Bureau of Insurance strongly encourages insurers and other licensees to be flexible and take into consideration the hardships and constraints many individuals and businesses are experiencing during this unprecedented public health emergency. For this reason, the Bureau encourages those it regulates to consider taking the following actions, consistent with prudent insurance practices: Insurers should consider relaxing due dates for premium payments, extending grace periods, waiving late fees and penalties, and allowing payment plans for premium payments to otherwise avoid a lapse in coverage. Insurers should also consider cancellation or non-renewal of policies only after exhausting all other reasonable efforts to work with policyholders to continue coverage. (Bureau of Insurance bulletin, March 27, 2020) The Bureau of Insurance (BOI) is not mandating that insurers provide flexibility with this statement, merely that insurers “should consider” not canceling policies if insureds have COVID-19 related issues that hamper premium payments. However, some insureds are taking advantage of the extensions of insurers and using this to shop rates or just take a break from premium payments. If insureds do not renew a policy, an insurer does not have to jump through all of the cancellation hoops contained in title 38.2 of the Code of Virginia. If an insured does not respond to an offer to renew, the policy lapses and the insured has no coverage as of the timeframe contained in the policy. Almost if not every insurer initially conditions renewal on receipt of premium when the insurer makes its first offer of renewal. This condition on receipt overrides any claims that simply mailing the premium prior to the due date suffices to renew the policy. By...
by KPM LAW | Sep 7, 2020 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
Written by: Jessica Relyea Edited by: Brian A. Cafritz As we previously explained, Virginia allows for one nonsuit, or voluntary dismissal, by plaintiff per case. A nonsuit allows the plaintiff to correct a flaw in their case and reset the matter to the start in a future filing, with no real penalty or hardship. While it is a powerful tool at plaintiff’s discretion, it does not shield plaintiff from their own wrongdoing. This begs the question of what happens if plaintiff waits to nonsuit their case until after a defendant gets a favorable verdict in General District Court? Can plaintiff appeal and nonsuit, allowing it to refile in district court and obtain a new trial, essentially voiding the judgment? Can the defendant move to dismiss the refiled pleading on the grounds of res judicata because the first district court judgment is final? To understand this issue, a little background is important. In Virginia, the district court is a court of limited jurisdiction. The maximum recovery is $25,000, discovery is limited, and a judge decides all cases. Either party can appeal the judge’s verdict to the Circuit Court for a de novo jury trial. Importantly however, is that if there is a defense verdict in district court, then on appeal, plaintiff cannot increase his or her ad damnum and seek more than $25,000. Afify v. Simmons, 254 Va. 315, 317-318 (1997). If plaintiff nonsuits after an appeal to Circuit Court, but before the jury trial, where does the case get refiled? What rules apply when it does? This issue came before the Supreme Court in the 2011 case of Davis...
by KPMLAW | Aug 25, 2020 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
Written by Henry U. Moore, Esq. Edited by Bill Pfund, Esq. It is not an uncommon scenario in general liability cases for multiple plaintiffs to be injured in one accident – this is especially common in motor vehicle cases. Under Virginia law, each injured party has their own separate cause of action for their own physical injuries and emotional distress resulting from those injuries. However, the lines can become blurred between causes of action when a plaintiff makes a claim that they suffered emotional distress damages from witnessing the injuries to another party. For instance, this scenario can arise in a motor vehicle accident where more than one person in the same car is injured, and one plaintiff claims he suffered emotional distress from witnessing the injury or death of his fellow passenger. These are commonly referred to as negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) or “bystander” claims, and they are very hard to establish under Virginia law. Virginia is in the minority of states that do not allow recovery for solely emotional distress experienced by family members or bystanders in close proximity to the injury or death of another – even if that ‘bystander” is himself involved or injured in the accident. Rather, a plaintiff must show that they suffered accompanying physical injury resulting from the emotional disturbance or distress. In Hughes v. Moore, 214 Va. 27 (1973) the Virginia Supreme Court laid out this rule for bystander claims that is still in force in the Commonwealth. There, a driver ran his car off the road, struck a vehicle parked in the plaintiff’s driveway, and crashed into the...
by KPMLAW | Jul 8, 2020 | Covid, KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
Written by Gary Reinhardt, Esq. The Bureau of Insurance strongly encourages insurers and other licensees to be flexible and take into consideration the hardships and constraints many individuals and businesses are experiencing during this unprecedented public health emergency. For this reason, the Bureau encourages those it regulates to consider taking the following actions, consistent with prudent insurance practices: Insurers should consider relaxing due dates for premium payments, extending grace periods, waiving late fees and penalties, and allowing payment plans for premium payments to otherwise avoid a lapse in coverage. Insurers should also consider cancellation or non-renewal of policies only after exhausting all other reasonable efforts to work with policyholders to continue coverage. (Bureau of Insurance bulletin, March 27, 2020) The Bureau of Insurance (BOI) is not mandating that insurers provide flexibility with this statement, merely that insurers “should consider” not canceling policies if insureds have COVID-19 related issues that hamper premium payments. However, some insureds are taking advantage of the extensions of insurers and using this to shop rates or just take a break from premium payments. If insureds do not renew a policy, an insurer does not have to jump through all of the cancellation hoops contained in title 38.2 of the Code of Virginia. If an insured does not respond to an offer to renew, the policy lapses and the insured has no coverage as of the timeframe contained in the policy. Almost if not every insurer initially conditions renewal on receipt of premium when the insurer makes its first offer of renewal. This condition on receipt overrides any claims that simply mailing the premium prior to...
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...
