The compensable consequence doctrine applies "when the injury does not arise
on the day of the accident, but instead develops as a direct consequence of an initial
injury." Under the doctrine of compensable consequences, an employer's liability for an
industrial injury extends to "all the medical consequences and sequelae that flow from
the primary injury." The employer is responsible for a natural consequence that flows
from the original injury, if it is a direct and natural result of the primary injury.
In Virginia, by statute, Plaintiff has a right to one nonsuit, or voluntary dismissal, as a matter of right. You can read more about the procedure and rules surrounding a nonsuit here. While a nonsuit is a very important vehicle for Plaintiff to correct defects in their case, it does not shield Plaintiff from a pending motion for sanctions.
“Does It Matter When The Damage Occurred?”: Analyzing the Timing of Coverage for General and Subcontractors
In evaluating coverage for a general or subcontractor, it is important to understand not only what is covered by your liability policy, but also when coverage is triggered. The type of coverage will affect when coverage is triggered, and thus affect the types of damages that are covered.
In Dominion Res., Inc. v Alstom Power, Inc., 825 S.E. 2d 757, 297 Va. 262 (2019), the court held
that the collateral source rule does apply to breach of contract actions, where a plaintiff has
been reimbursed by an insurer for the full amount it seeks in damages from the defendant. The
court noted, however, that whether the collateral source rule applies should be determined on
a case by case basis.
As the latest and greatest trend for commuters and those that just do not want to walk clutters the landscape of cities and college campuses, a significant problem exists that not many people seemed to have thought about: does the operator of the e-scooter have liability coverage in the event of an accident?
The US District Court in Alexandria recently found a carrier acted in bad faith in the case of South Boston Energy, LLC v. Hartford Steam Boiler Specialty Insurance. In this case, the insured, a power plant, suffered a loss to a large turbine. A piece of metal got inside the turbine and forced the insured to disassemble the turbine. The insured reported the loss to its insurer.
When an employee is assaulted at work, there are several factors to consider in assessing whether the assault “arises out of” the employment. Assault cases are tricky to defend due to the subjective nature of why a person is attacked. Further, the issue is compounded when the assailant is not available to testify regarding the motive. Recently, KPM’s own Bob McAdam successfully argued to the Full Commission that “why” an assailant attacks a claimant is the most important factor to consider regardless of whether motive is known.