by KPMLAW | Apr 6, 2021 | Events, KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized, Updates
Written by Stephanie Cook, ESQ. Edited by Bill Pfund, ESQ. SB 1108 – Raises Jurisdictional Limits In General District Court SB 1182 – Raises Motor vehicle Liability Insurance Coverage Limits SB 1108 has passed and will become law in Virginia on July 1, 2021. This new law increases from $25,000 to $50,000 the maximum civil jurisdictional limit of general district courts for civil actions for personal injury and wrongful death actions only. Note that $25,000 remains the jurisdictional limit for all other claims such as those involving property damage or breach of contract. It also now requires an appeal bond from a defendant who wishes to appeal a decision from general district court to circuit court by stating, “in a case where a defendant with indemnity coverage through a policy of liability insurance appeals, the bond required by this section shall not exceed the amount of the judgment that is covered by a policy of indemnity coverage.” Previously, if an insured defendant wanted to appeal a general district court decision to circuit court, an appeal bond was not required. Instead, all that was required was a “written irrevocable confirmation of coverage in the amount of the judgment.” As a result of this new law, we will surely see more claims filed in general district court as opposed to circuit court. There is little to no discovery in general district court, so plaintiffs have an incentive to file in general district court rather than circuit court in order to save costs. In addition, there is no jury in general district court. We should also expect to see a flurry of...
by KPMLAW | Mar 21, 2021 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
Written by Jessica Gorman, Esq. Edited by Bob McAdam, Esq. Certain employees may now be able to establish compensability of COVID-19 claims. On Saturday, February 27, 2021, the General Assembly passed two bills making it easier for certain employees, such as health care providers and first responders to claim workers’ compensation for contracting COVID-19 on the job. The two bills considered and passed are as follows: HB 1985 Workers’ compensation; presumption of compensability for COVID-19. Workers’ compensation; presumption of compensability for COVID-19. Establishes a presumption that COVID-19 causing the death or disability of health care providers is an occupational disease compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The bill provides that the COVID-19 virus is established by a positive diagnostic test for COVID-19, an incubation period consistent with COVID-19, and signs and symptoms of COVID-19 that require medical treatment. The bill provides that such presumption applies to any death or disability occurring on or after March 12, 2020, caused by infection from the COVID-19 virus, provided that for any such death or disability that occurred on or after March 12, 2020, and prior to December 31, 2021, the claimant received a positive diagnosis of COVID-19 from a licensed physician, after either a presumptive positive test or a laboratory-confirmed test for COVID-19, and presented with signs and symptoms of COVID-19 that required medical treatment. The bill provides that such presumptions do not apply to any person offered by his employer a vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 unless the person’s physician determines in writing that immunization would pose a significant risk to the person’s health. Under this bill, all health care providers are afforded...
by KPMLAW | Mar 16, 2021 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
Written by Andrew Strobo, Esq. Edited by Bill Pfund. Esq. Occurrence-based liability insurance policies are peculiar because the term “occurrence” is ambiguous and unhelpful to insureds. In fact, the Merriam-Webster dictionary simply defines the term occurrence as “something that occurs.” Moreover, occurrence-based policies do not provide coverage based on when the “occurrence” takes place, but rather when either bodily injury or property damage “occurs” within the policy period. This raises an important question: what is an “occurrence” and what role does it play in determining coverage? Occurrence-based liability policies insure against loss arising from bodily injury or property damage, but only when an “occurrence” causes such loss. Although the meaning of an “occurrence” may differ from policy to policy, most define the term as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” In other words, an “occurrence” is an accident. Indeed, the Virginia Supreme Court has recognized that “[t]he terms ‘occurrence’ and ‘accident’ are ‘synonymous…” AES Corp. v. Steadfast Ins. Co., 283 Va. 609 (2012). As a result, what is and is not an accident is an important question in determining coverage. After all, practically every person seeking coverage will claim that an accident caused his or her damages regardless of what actually happened. Under Virginia law, an intentional act directly resulting in harm is obviously not an accident. The Virginia Supreme Court has held that an “accident” is “commonly understood to mean an event which creates an effect which is not the natural or probable consequence of the means employed and is not intended, designed, or reasonably anticipated.” AES Corp. v. Steadfast...
by KPMLAW | Mar 9, 2021 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
Written by Edward Trivette, Esq. The defense of personal injury damages claims often involves consultation with medical experts and reliance upon their opinions in determining the approach to valuation, resolution and trial. At trial, testimony of a medical expert is often critical to issues of causation, extent of injury, ongoing impairment, reasonableness of treatment and the extent of any future treatment. Plaintiff’s counsel often seeks to cross-examine the defense medical expert for bias and a recent Supreme Court of Virginia case will provide new ammunition for that effort. The issue of cross-examination of medical experts regarding their relationship with insurers was first addressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Lombard v. Rohrbaugh, 262 Va. 484, 551 S.E.2d 349 (2001). There the trial court allowed Plaintiff’s counsel to cross-examine a defense medical expert who had been hired as an independent contractor by the insurance carrier regarding payments the expert had received in excess of $100,000 from the insurance carrier in each of the prior two years. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that even though the medical expert was hired as an independent contractor, there was evidence of a “substantial relationship” between the medical expert and the insurance carrier that outweighed “any prejudice to the defendant resulting from the jury’s knowledge that the defendant carries liability insurance.” Id. at 496-97. The Supreme Court analyzed the interplay of two competing principles of evidentiary law, which have since been included in the Virginia Rules of Evidence. First, Rule 2:403 provides that “[relevant evidence may be excluded if . . . the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by...
by KPMLAW | Mar 1, 2021 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
Written by Sabrina Carter, Esq. Edited by Brian Cafritz, Esq. Society has always commended those who put themselves at risk in order to rescue their fellow man. Superhero movies and courtrooms alike have affirmed time and time again that a “Good Samaritan” is honorable and courageous. In the name of good public policy, the law has adopted protections for these individuals to promote selfless acts and rescue attempts. However, what happens when the Good Samaritan is injured? If a stranger to your business intervenes post-accident in order to help an injured guest, his or her actions can expose the business to additional liability. Therefore, before you allow those with capes and leotards to interject themselves, let us stop to consider what this could mean for your business. In the Commonwealth of Virginia, the “rescue doctrine” works to protect injured rescuers. It states that a rescuer who is injured during the rescue attempt may sue the person and/or entity who is responsible for endangering the victim. That can mean the person causing the original accident, or another separate cause. For example, a customer may be injured while intervening to stop a third party criminal act. Or a rescuer may slip on debris coming to the aid of another injured person. Another twist is that the responsible party could even be the victim herself. In any of these cases, the injured rescuer, whom society has collectively applauded throughout time, my sue your company to recover for her injuries. The case of Ruffin v. Tignor Trucking Corp. illustrates the exposure from this type of scenario. In Ruffin, an employee of Tignor Trucking...
