by KPMLAW | Jul 2, 2020 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
Written by Randall C. Lenhart, Jr. Edited by Bill Pfund Virginia does not require motor vehicle liability coverage for its motorists. Instead, Virginia motorists are free to choose whether or not to purchase liability insurance for their vehicles. But if they decide not to insure their vehicles they must pay a $500 “uninsured motorist fee” at the time of registration of the uninsured vehicle. Virginia does require though that all certified motor vehicle liability policies issued or delivered in the Commonwealth provide minimum insurance coverage to the insured in the amount of $25,000 because of bodily injury to or death of one person in any one accident and in the amount of $50,000 because of bodily injury to or death of two or more persons in any one accident. Virginia also requires minimum coverage of $20,000 for property damage. These minimum limits are codified in Virginia Code § 46.2-472 and have been set in the current amounts for over 30 years. Earlier this year, SB 664 was introduced which would have increased the minimum motor vehicle liability insurance coverage limits from $25,000 to $100,000 in cases of bodily injury to or death of one person, from $50,000 to $200,000 in cases of bodily injury to or death of more than one person in any one accident, and from $20,000 to $40,000 for property damage coverage. The Senate Transportation Committee amended the Bill to reduce the increases from $25,000 to $35,000 in cases of bodily injury to or death of one person and from $50,000 to $70,000 in cases of bodily injury to or death of more than one person...
by KPMLAW | Jun 26, 2020 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
Written by Delia deBlass, Esq. Edited by Bill Pfund, Esq. When a foreign object is found in a food product, a Plaintiff will typically bring their claim under a products liability action. Plaintiff has the option of bringing two different, but intertwined claims: negligence and/or breach of implied warranty of merchantability. But is there a difference in the claims, and does it matter? Negligence in this instance is a well-known concept, in that the Plaintiff has to prove duty, fault, causation and damages. There are three different types of negligence that can apply with products liability: (1) negligent design; (2) negligent manufacture; or (3) negligent failure to warn. With foreign objects in food, negligent failure to warn is most often pled. A negligence claim will focus on the conduct of the food product supplier in failing to warn users of dangers that could come about by the product’s use. That being said, a plaintiff can also bring a breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim. The implied warranty of merchantability is a claim that has roots in both Virginia case law and Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) as adopted by Virginia. Article 2 of the UCC deals with consumer transactions. Section 2-314 of the UCC provides the definition for merchantability of goods, which states that (among other things) merchantable goods must be “fit for the ordinary purpose for which such goods are used” and “adequately contained, packaged, and labeled”. (See UCC §2-314 (2)(c), (2)(e).) The elements of a breach of implied warranty of merchantability are that goods sold were unreasonably dangerous for use to which they...
by KPMLAW | Jun 23, 2020 | Court, KPMBlog, News, Updates
The Sixth Order Extending Declaration of Judicial Emergency In Response to Covid-19 Emergency entered by the Virginia Supreme Court was entered yesterday. Highlights are offered below. You can review the entire Order here. The Declaration of Judicial Emergency is EXTENDED until July 19, 2020 Statutes of Limitations and case related deadlines (except for discovery deadlines) continue to be tolled during period of Judicial Emergency. While video conferencing and telephonic hearings are preferred, Courts may hear in-person non-emergency matters and non-jury cases if they determine it is safe to do so. Still not necessary for a party to obtain the agreement of any other party to bring a pre-trial motion before the court set a non-jury trial. Facemasks required Continuances and excuses for failure to appear shall be liberally granted for reasons resulting from impact of Covid-19 Jury trials remain suspended and no jury trials shall take place for the duration of this Order. Jury trials after July 19 are subject to a further period of suspension if the Declaration of Judicial Emergency is extended. Judge Lemons has appointed a Task Force to address the reinstatement of jury trials in the...
by KPMLAW | Jun 8, 2020 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
Written by Claire Cafritz Carr, Esq. Edited by Rachel A. Riordan, Esq. A new workers’ compensation law recently passed in Virginia will go into effect on July 1st and will impact employers and carriers at the outset of a work related accident. The new law is §65.2-601.2 and it provides that once an employee files a claim for benefits under §65.2-601 (addressing the time limit for filing a claim) the Commission shall issue an order to the employer to advise the employee within 30 days whether the claim will be accepted or denied and the reasons for any denial. If a decision can’t be made due to a lack of information, the specific information required to make a decision must be provided. The notice to the employee can be sent to the employee by email if he or she consents. Here is the link to the statute: https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+ful+CHAP1086+pdf § 65.2-601.2. Notice to employee of employer’s intent. A. Whenever an employee makes a claim pursuant to § 65.2-601, the Commission shall order the employer to advise the employee, within 30 days following the date of such order, whether the employer (i) intends to accept the claim, (ii) intends to deny the claim, or (iii) is unable to determine whether it intends to accept or deny the claim because the employer lacks sufficient information from the employee or a third party to make such determination. If the employer responds that it intends to deny the claim, the response shall provide reasons therefor. If the employer responds that it is unable to determine whether it intends to accept or deny the claim...
by KPMLAW | Jun 4, 2020 | Court, KPMBlog, News, Updates
Linked here, please see the Public Notice from the Chesterfield J&DR Court and the Fourth Revised Order, entered today, from the Chesterfield GDC Pursuant to the Extension of Declaration of Judicial...
by KPMLAW | Jun 2, 2020 | Court, KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized, Updates
Please click here to view the 5th Order from the Virginia Supreme Court, entered June 1, 2020, Modifying and Extending the Declaration of Judicial...
