Written by Daniel Royce, Esq. In the world of public risk, the doctrine of sovereign immunity is often raised but seldom understood. Courts frequently grapple with how far the doctrine should extend and under what circumstances it can be applied. The doctrine of sovereign immunity is “alive and well” in Virginia. Commonwealth ex rel. Fair Hous. Bd. V. Windsor Plaza Condo. Ass’n, 289 Va. 34 (2014). The Virginia General Assembly has employed an incremental approach to enacting a limited waiver of immunity in the Virginia Tort Claims Act. AlBritton v. Commonwealth, 299 Va. 392, 399 (2021). However, claims against localities and employees continue to be governed by common law principles. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va. v. Carter, 267 Va. 242, 244-245 (2004). A new ruling from the Circuit Court of Prince William County (Va) has clarified these issues a little more. The case involved a former public school student and resident of Prince William County. This former student filed a lawsuit alleging negligence by current and former Prince William County Public School officials. The purported negligence of these officials allegedly resulted in her being the victim of sexual assault while a special education student at C.D. Hylton High School. This suit was a revival of a similar action originally filed in January 2019 against the Virginia Board of Education, Prince William School Board, David Cassady (former Superintendent), Michelle Roper (Special Education Director), and Steven Walts (Principal of C.D. Hylton High School). In the prior suit, defendants’ denied all wrongdoing and argued in favor of dismissal on the basis that the plaintiff did not sufficiently show negligence. ...
Written by Robert Worst, Esq. Edited by Bill Pfund, Esq. Does anyone remember that Ethan Hawke, Uma Thurman, Jude Law futuristic movie from the 90’s “Gattaca”? In it, humans could purchase select genetic characteristics for children if they had enough money. The outcasts were the children born naturally without genetic enhancement. One particular threat in the movie was that insurance companies had begun basing insurance coverage and rates on a person’s level of genetic enhancement and would not insure natural, non-modified persons due to the perceived higher risk of illness, injury or death. The movie tapped into our collective fear over the loss of control of our private information and big business’s ability to use that information against us. One area of Virginia insurance and motor vehicle law codified that fear by protecting another form of personal information: the way we drive. The result is that potentially useful information recorded by the Airbag Control Module after an accident may be difficult or impossible to obtain. The Virginia General Assembly introduced House Bill 816 in 2006 amending Virginia’s insurance and motor vehicle laws to prohibit insurers from using data recorded by motor vehicles against the vehicle’s owner. Va. HB 816 added a new subsection “s” to Va. Code §38.2-2212. This statute already prohibited insurers from refusing to renew a motor vehicle insurance policy solely because of constitutionally protected status such as age, gender, and race. The new section “s”, however, also included “the refusal of a motor vehicle operator … to provide access to recorded data from a recording device” in the vehicle. A new section, Va. Code §38.2-2213.1, further...
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...
A.M. Best recently compiled a panel of insurance risk experts and insurance attorneys including KPM’s Robert Worst, Managing Partner at KPM LAW’s Fairfax office. In this webinar, experts examine what’s at stake, how to protect against risk, and what new risks are emerging in this dynamic sector. View the...
Gary Reinhardt, General Counsel to the IASIU and state police “Red Flag” Instructor will be speaking at several upcoming events: September 12-15 “The Internet of Things” International Association of Special Investigation Units International Seminar, Las Vegas, NV. September 27-30 “Prosecutors, Law Enforcement & Special Investigation Units: Working Together to Fight Fraud” Red Flag Investigation and Prosecution of Insurance Fraud, Huddleston, VA, Smith Mountain Lake, Mariners Landing Resort & Conference Center. October 27 John Messersmith will collaborate with neuropsychologist Dr. Doug Gibson for a presentation on traumatic brain injury at the 7th annual Atlanta Trucking Conference. This year’s seminar is on “The Anatomy & Life of a Truck Accident Claim: Preparing for and Avoiding the...
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. ...
