Like so many people this past spring, we had to rethink how we use our homes. For most of us they just simply weren’t set up for 24-hour occupancy by multiple people working from home. We also had to rethink how we work and who to include in our daily scheduling to...read more
What to do when an uninsured-underinsured motorist (“UM”) insurer asks for your client’s recorded statement or examination under oath
You probably have had carriers ask your client in an auto case to submit to a recorded statement or an examination under oath. How you react should depend on the coverage issues at play. If you are seeking uninsured-underinsured motorist coverage from the requesting...read more
Uncertainty abounds when it comes to the novel Coronavirus Covid-19, and the insurance industry is no exception. And while we find it personally humorous to see the number of people suddenly declaring themselves experts in an area with little to no case law directly...read more
We recently ran into a funny little twist with a UM/ UIM claim. The carrier was trying to apply a $200 property damage deductible. But the UM driver was known and identified. And under Virginia law, carriers cannot apply a deductible when the identity of the other...read more
The Supreme Court of Virginia recently issued an opinion that addresses at least three core points: (1) when can a contract outside the policy itself affect which insurance applies if an accident happens? (2) how does an auto exclusion common to Commercial General...read more
If you do nothing other than buy your policy, you will get the best amount of uninsured motorist coverage you can get given your other policy limits. Virginia requires all auto policies pay for harm done to you and your family by drivers with little or no insurance of...read more
A recent federal case from Virginia's Western District serves as a useful guide for remanding case from federal court back to state court. In Purayr, LLC, v. Phocatox Technologies, LLC, 5:16cv47, the judge remanded a case for missing the thirty-day removal deadline,...read more
Do you know what a compound preposition is? They appear often in legal writing, and for no good reason. Read the list below. On the left—compound prepositions. After each dash—replacements for them. The examples will teach you to recognize compound prepositions,...read more
How you write affects how you are understood. Fonts provide one key to easier understanding by your audience, whether it is a judge, law clerk, or mediator. The number one rule: use fonts with serifs for the main text. Serifs are the horizontal lines at the top and...read more
Judge Robert E. Payne of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, denied a motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations filed by property carrier First Liberty against its insured. John Rasmussen of the Insurance Recovery Law Group, PLC, defended the insured against that motion, which addressed an issue of first impression under Virginia insurance and procedural law.
A two-year statute applies to property insurance claims in Virginia. The insured filed a lawsuit seeking money damages and declaratory relief for a fire, but more than two years after it happened. The insured, however, had earlier filed and nonsuited an action to appoint an appraisal umpire in Hanover Circuit Court. And she refiled the damages claim within six months of that nonsuit.
This issue has received significant attention recently, after a Virginia Circuit Court judge did not apply the tolling statute to a second suit because it sought a different amount of damages. As noted above, this decision rejected that approach.
As recently reported in the Virginia Lawyers' Weekly, the Insurance Recovery Law Group, PLC (along with co-counsel CantorArkema) prevailed on summary judgment argument in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, securing a ruling in...read more
The Virginia Supreme Court’s opinion in Virginia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Williams (Record 81900), issued June 4, 2009, brings sweeping change to uninsured motorist coverage law in Virginia. It does so by potentially increasing the amount of UM coverage available for an injured insured if more than one auto is on the same policy. Beyond that more obvious issue, which has already been reported in Virginia Lawyer’s Weekly, the Williams opinion also addresses two other points that help insureds in coverage disputes with their carriers.read more
In a unanimous decision, the Virginia Supreme Court agreed with the firm, reversed a trial court's ruling, and found $500,000 in insurance coverage for a client hit and hurt by another driver who crossed the median on Interstate 295.In its April 17, 2009 opinion, the...read more
The Insurance Recovery Law Group has briefed an appeal to be heard before the Virginia Supreme Court on February 24, 2009.The case addresses two core issues: (1) whether a statute that excludes auto dealers from Virginia's liability insurance requirements also...read more