by KPMLAW | Aug 15, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized, Updates
Whether an assault upon an employee is compensable depends on a variety of factors. The initial inquiry to be made is whether it falls under the definition of a compensable injury by accident. To be compensable, an injury by accident must arise out of and in the course of employment. Va. Code § 65.2-101; County of Chesterfield v. Johnson, 237 Va. 180, 183, 376 S.E.2d 73, 74 (1989). The claimant bears the burden of proving his injury arose out of his employment. Marketing Profiles, Inc. v. Hill, 17 Va. App. 431, 433, 437 S.E.2d 727, 729 (1993). The phrase “arising out of” refers to the origin or cause of the injury. Johnson, 237 Va. at 183, 376 S.E.2d at 74; Marion Correctional Ctr. v. Henderson, 20 Va. App. 477, 479, 458 S.E.2d 301, 303 (1995). An injury arises out of the employment where there is apparent to the rational mind upon consideration of all the circumstances, a causal connection between the conditions under which the work is required to be performed and resulting injury. Bradshaw v. Aronovitch, 170 Va. 329, 335, 196 S.E. 684, 686 (1938). In Virginia, the “actual risk” test is used to determine whether an injury arises out of the employment. Hill City Trucking, Inc. v. Christian, 238 Va. 735, 739, 385 S.E.2d 377, 379 (1989)( holding that a truck driver’s injuries sustained during a robbery did not arise out of his employment as an over-the-road truck driver where there was no evidence establishing a nexus between the criminal act and his employment.) “An accident arises out of the employment if a causal connection is established...
by KPMLAW | Aug 15, 2016 | Events, KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized, Updates
Surveys show that individuals are giving more and more to causes they care about… A few bucks here, a raffle ticket there. While giving among big donors and companies has been down in recent years, Americans individually have never given more. As a firm, we were no different. Without a single cause to which we dedicated ourselves, our gifts were scattered. We were giving a little, a lot. Food drives, sponsorships, races… but we didn’t feel impact and satisfaction that comes from donating generously to a singular cause and sticking to it. In 2016, we vowed to change that. We wanted to focus our charitable giving on a cause that meant something to the firm and our mission. We revisited our belief statement… a belief in “equal justice under the law.” At KPM, we know that justice doesn’t come cheap. It’s hard fought and won for all by the relentless conviction of the few who fight on our behalf. KPM LAW has dedicated its 2016 charitable resources to support Wounded Warrior Projects like this one. We proudly sponsored the 2016 Wounded Warrior Paracycling Series in Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley last month and celebrate the victories of these noble service men and women who so humbly defended our freedoms so that we can enjoy Justice. Congratulations to CPT (Ret) Will Reynolds and Richard Cook, and COL (Ret) Patty Collins on their success on the course. You can learn more about Wounded Warrior and the Paracycling Series here. ...
by KPMLAW | Jul 12, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized, Updates
Written by Kevin Kennedy Edited by Janeen Koch Two recent Virginia circuit court opinions have thrown into confusion the pre-trial duties owed by a UIM carrier to a plaintiff. Understanding the facts of these cases and arguments that led to different rulings can help avoid any potential bad faith claims when a carrier is adverse to a policyholder who has brought a UIM claim. The first case, Chevalier-Seawell v. Mangum, 90 Va. Cir. 420, is a decision from Norfolk Circuit Court that was issued by Judge Mary Jane Hall in April of 2015. In this case, defendant admitted liability for the collision; the plaintiff was claiming a traumatic brain injury; defendant’s insurance carrier had offered its full coverage of $100,000 (the stipulated special damages exceeded $63,000) and Allstate (the UIM carrier) had made absolutely no offer to settle the case at the time the bad faith motion was filed. Eventually, Allstate did make a settlement offer five days before trial, after Plaintiff had incurred additional expenses for trial. That initial offer was $50,000, increased to $55,000, and finally increased again the day before trial to $75,000. At trial, the jury returned a verdict to the plaintiff for $800,000.00. Counsel for Allstate argued that it did not owe any pre-judgment duties to the plaintiff. Pursuant to Va. Code § 38.2-2206, its sole duty is to “pay the insured all sums that he is legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle, within limits not less than the [legal requirement].” However, the court found that a UIM carrier is still subject to penalties...
by KPMLAW | Jul 12, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized
Written by Chris Bergin Edited by Brian Cafritz Racial and Religious discrimination has been an issue in our country for generations. Gender, Age and Sexual Orientation discrimination, however, has become more of an issue in recent years. For Retailers and Restaurateurs who deal with the public at large, the issue is even more pronounced. On June 26, 2015—just about one year ago—the United States Supreme Court returned its landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges holding that the United States Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry. In the immediate aftermath of this decision, some business owners actively protested the ruling by categorically refusing to provide services for same-sex weddings. In doing so, those same businesses, knowingly or not, opened themselves up to liability under public accommodation statutes. Although public accommodation statutes first appeared in the 50’s and 60’s to combat racial discrimination, they are rapidly evolving to combat sex discrimination, religious discrimination, and discrimination against the LGBTQUIA community. Restaurant and retail owners should understand these statutes to ensure compliance and mitigate risks. Generally speaking, property owners have a right to exclude anyone from their private property for any reason. There is, however, one major limitation on this general rule: federal, state, and municipal public accommodation statutes. These statutes prohibit private property owners who operate “public accommodations” from excluding customers on certain discriminatory grounds. For business owners, this raises two questions: (1) what qualifies as a public accommodation, and (2) who do public accommodation statutes protect? What Qualifies as a Public Accommodation? Under the federal public accommodation statute, a “public accommodation” is one of the following: Hotels and other...
by KPMLAW | Jul 12, 2016 | Events, KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized
Insurance policies define “Occurrence.” Generally, policies define an “occurrence” as an “accident” or “repeated exposure to the same or similar” conditions. Liability policies require an occurrence for coverage and require an insured to give prompt notice of any “occurrence” that could result in a claim. First-party coverage, however, often does not rely on the word “occurrence.” Most policies require an insured to give prompt notice of a “loss.” Recently, the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia determined if “occurrence” and “loss” meant the same thing and what impact the use of each word had on an insured’s duty to timely report a first-party claim. In Wheeler v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38255, Wheeler suffered damage to her barn when trees fell on the porch of the barn. Thinking that the barn repair cost would be less than her deductible, Wheeler had unidentified day laborers repair the damage. She did not notice any other damage at the time. Several months after the repair, Wheeler heard rumbling noises and then the foundation basement wall of the barn collapsed on the same side of the barn where the trees fell. Wheeler reported the earlier damage and the wall collapse to her insurer. Experts determined that the trees falling months earlier led to the wall collapsing. Despite that, the insurer denied coverage for several reasons, the first that Wheeler did not “promptly” report her “loss” to the insurer. The insurer claimed that Wheeler should have reported her claim when the trees fell on the barn. The Honorable Norman K. Moon first noted that “occurrence” is...
by KPMLAW | Jun 14, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized, Updates
Written by Matthew V. Daly, Esq. Edited by Janeen B. Koch, Esq. “Parallel proceedings” are two legal proceedings arising out of a single set of facts, ongoing simultaneously –civil, criminal, or administrative. A common example in the liability world is a defendant in a car accident suit that is simultaneously pursuing his own claim for injuries sustained in the same accident. Such a scenario, and all others involving a parallel proceeding, requires the insurer and defense counsel to work together to make certain the insured’s interests in both proceedings are adequately protected. While all parallel proceedings present unique challenges, a particularly sensitive set of issues arises when the defendant in a civil case faces a simultaneous criminal prosecution arising from the same incident. Thanks to the Sixth Amendment guarantee to a speedy trial, in many cases, any criminal charges arising from the same incident are fully adjudicated by the time civil litigation begins. However, it is entirely possible for a criminal prosecution to extend well into the discovery phase of a civil case, particularly in cases involving more serious charges (e.g., hit and run, driving under the influence, manslaughter). In those instances, the civil discovery can be a source of valuable information to the criminal prosecution – possibly including damaging party admissions by the defendant – all of particular interest to prosecutors hamstrung by the more limited criminal discovery rules. The defendant may be able to protect himself by invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in the civil case. The Fifth Amendment provides, in part, “[n]o person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against...
by KPMLAW | Jun 14, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized, Updates
Written by Rachel Riordan, Esq. Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts interpret and apply legislation. Some amount of interpretation is often necessary when a case involves a statute. Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and straightforward meaning. In other cases, the words of a statute are vague enough to allow a Deputy Commissioner to infer his or her own interpretation of the meaning of words. In Roberson v. Peninsula Auto Painting, Jurisdiction Claim No. 1353553 (April 28, 2016), the Commission addressed the claimant’s request for a hand brake for his motorcycle. The claimant sustained a compensable right knee injury which, unfortunately, developed an infection requiring an above-the-knee amputation. The claimant requested payment for the modification of his motorcycle. Virginia Code Section 65.2-603 addresses the defendants’ responsibility for medical equipment and modifications. The statute includes modifications to the claimant’s home and automobile up to $42,000.00 per accident. Pertinent to the statutory dispute in Roberson, it provides for “modifications to or equipment for the employee’s automobile…” The Deputy Commissioner, in his ruling, acknowledged that a motorcycle is not precisely an automobile, but it serves the same purpose and is an automated means of transportation. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner believed the term “automobile” was vague and it could reasonably be interpreted to be any automated means of transportation, including a motorcycle. The employer argued the word “automobile” was not vague and a motorcycle is not an automobile. In other Virginia statutes, the term “motor vehicle” has been specifically defined as an “automobile, motorcycle, mobile home, truck, van or other vehicle operating on public highways and streets.” Virginia...
by KPMLAW | Jun 14, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Updates
Author: Lee Hoyle, Esq. Editor: Brian Cafritz, Esq. Although the UCC offers some consistency between states, Products liability lawsuits, in general, are creatures of state law. 50 states means 50 potentially different tort laws. Each state can take its own approach to issues – from whether to adopt strict liability to the standard of admissibility for expert testimony to admissibility of other complaints about the product – and decide differently. Therein lies the problem. The potential disparity between outcomes from one state to the next can cause nightmares for anyone attempting to evaluate risks associated with selling products across the country. Fortunately (at least for products liability defendants), in some cases, Federal law may dictate a single, consistent answer: no products liability on a theory inconsistent with Federal law. Even where states have answered a question one way, Federal law may have something else to say. Federal law is the supreme law of the land, so any conflicting state law cannot be enforced. Such conflicts rarely arise in tort law, because there are few federal laws addressing torts. There are some industries that receive claims preemption as to certain claims due to extensive federal regulation of the industry as a whole. For example, drug manufacturers could not be sued for failure to warn when their labels complied with FDA requirements in Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604 (2011), while an automaker could not be held liable for failing to include airbags when such a requirement conflicted with the Department of Transportation’s regulations in Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). One interesting (and still developing)...
by KPMLAW | Jun 14, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized, Updates
Written by Gary Reinhardt, Esq. In Virginia, a material misrepresentation in an insurance application may render the insurance policy voidable. Who is an “applicant” is a question that an insurer must answer, particularly with small businesses set up as LLCs or corporations. In Jeb Stuart Auction Services, LLC v. West American Ins. Co., 122 F.Supp.3d 479 (W.D. Va. 2015), the Court ruled on who was the “applicant” when an individual completed an insurance application for an LLC. The person completing the application previously had been convicted of insurance fraud. The insurance application asked, “Has any applicant been indicted for or convicted of any degree of the crime of fraud . . .” The individual completing the application on behalf of the LLC answered “No” to this question. The individual then signed the application at the “Applicant Signature” location. Following a fire, the insurer voided the policy and denied coverage, claiming that the individual’s “No” answer to the fraud question amounted to a material misrepresentation in the application. The insured countered that the individual was not the “applicant.” Instead, the LLC was the “applicant” and the LLC had not been convicted of fraud, the LLC had not materially misrepresented facts on the application and, therefore, the LLC had coverage for the fire. The insurer responded that an LLC obviously cannot complete an application and must speak through its members. Further, in order to assess risk, the application must seek information about the party or parties that make up an LLC. The insurer argued that the failure to disclose the fraud conviction voided the policy. The Court sided with the LLC,...
by KPMLAW | Jun 14, 2016 | Uncategorized
In attorney Chris Bergin’s own words… When I graduated from The College of William and Mary in 2011, I was incredibly conflicted about what to do with the rest of my life. Specifically, I was stuck between deciding whether I wanted to pursue a career as an actor or whether I should take the plunge and apply to law school. Fortunately for me, I chose the latter and joined this incredible law firm with an extremely talented, kind, and hard-working group of people. Still, I never lost the theater bug. Even in law school at American University, Washington College of Law, I participated in the Law Revue— a group of like-minded students who wrote, directed, and performed musical parodies poking fun at the law school experience. Past shows included: Law School Musical, and Harry Potter and the Order of the Coif. Fortunately, I work at KPM LAW’s branch in the city of Richmond, Virginia, which is fertile ground for theater. I’ve managed to take part in several local theater productions including upcoming performances of Arsenic and Old Lace at the Dogwood Dell Festival of Arts, and The Boy with The Lion at Firehouse Theater. On top of that, I am also a performer with CSZ Richmond, Home of Comedy Sportz, where I perform improvisational-style comedy shows with some of Richmond’s funniest people. I believe my experiences in theater and improvisation have made me an effective speaker and a powerful advocate. They taught me to think on my feet, engage my audience, and make my points effectively. I am delighted that I get to work in a city where I...
