by KPMLAW | Apr 16, 2019 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized
Written by Bill Pfund, Esq. HOW TO RESPOND TO COMPUTER POP-UPS. In addition to being annoying, computer pop-ups or notifications are often the first step a cyber-criminal uses to victimize unsuspecting users. Be cautious of any notification or pop-up messages. Examples include emails that say you have to download something in order to see a greeting card or a message that says your computer is infected. Don’t click on anything in these pop-ups, including the “x” inside the pop-up itself. Your best response to remove the pop-up safely is to hold down three keys “CTL+ALT+DEL” to exit a pop-up safely on a Windows computer. Use “CMD+ Option+Escape” on a Mac. Then run your antivirus software to see if there is any malware on your computer that caused the pop-up. HOW TO RESPOND TO FAKE EMAIL MESSAGES Be careful where you click. Don’t click on links or attachments in e-mails from an unknown sender, a suspicious sender or emails that don’t make sense. Remember that a friend’s email account can become compromised and that attackers can “spoof” someone’s email address to appear to be from anyone they choose. Remember-don’t react emotionally to an email. Pause and think before clicking. Hackers count on this emotional response to overcome logic and force us into making bad cyber-decisions. RANSOMWARE Ransomware is a form of malware that restricts access to data by encrypting files or locking computer screens. The criminal behind the ransomware infection then attempts to extort money from the victim by asking for a “ransom”, usually in the form of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or in the form of the gift cards from...
by KPMLAW | Apr 16, 2019 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
Rachel Riordan has been selected to the 2019 Virginia Rising Stars list. Each year, no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor. Rachel has been honored every year since 2015. Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys. The Super Lawyers lists are published nationwide in Super Lawyers Magazines and in leading city and regional magazines and newspapers across the country. Super Lawyers Magazines also feature editorial profiles of attorneys who embody excellence in the practice of law. For more information about Super Lawyers, visit...
by KPMLAW | Mar 25, 2019 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
Written by Andy Webb, Esq. Edited by Gary Reinhardt, Esq. A reciprocal insurance exchange is “an unincorporated association in which members (as individuals, partnerships, trustees, or corporations) exchange contracts and pay premiums through an attorney-in-fact for the insurance of each other.” Reciprocal Exchange: Legal Definition, Merriam-Webster.com, https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/reciprocal%20 exchange (last visited March 6, 2019). Historically, insurance exchanges were formed by individuals or corporations engaged in a similar line of business who together undertook to indemnify one another from certain kinds of risks by a mutual exchange of insurance contracts. See Lee v. Interinsurance Exchange, 50 Cal. App. 4th 694. Often times insurance exchanges were started to avoid questionable risk pools. For example, USAA (a reciprocal insurance exchange with a military focus and over ten million customers) was founded by military officers who believed they were better drivers than average civilians. See Andrew Verstein, Enterprise Without Entities, 116 Mich. L. Rev. 247, 267 (2017) (citing Paul T. Ringenbach, USAA: A Tradition of Service 1922-1997, at 20). Today, policyholders in a reciprocal insurance exchange—often known as “subscribers”—act through a common attorney-in-fact and are simultaneously both insurers and insureds. This method of providing insurance is different from mutual insurance companies because insurance exchanges do not have a corporate existence; instead, they are simply an unincorporated association of individuals who swap potential liabilities between themselves. 43 Am. Jur. 2d Insurance § 72 (2016). Reciprocal Insurance Exchanges’ Unique Legal Position Due to their unique structure, certain distinctive legal questions arise in litigation involving reciprocal insurance exchanges. One of the most relevant of these questions is where are reciprocal exchanges “citizens” for the purpose of diversity...
by KPMLAW | Mar 25, 2019 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
Written by Lee Hoyle Edited by Brian A. Cafritz All tort cases, at the broadest level, consist of two elements: liability and damages. If the defendant prevails on liability, the plaintiff necessarily recovers nothing. However, the converse is not always true. The Virginia Supreme Court has reaffirmed twice in the past two years that a plaintiff who prevails on liability is not necessarily entitled to recover any damages. As long as the evidence supports such conclusion, the jury is free to decide that the plaintiff was not injured and award no damages. In Gilliam v. Immel, 293 Va. 18 (2017), the plaintiff was the driver of a vehicle struck from behind by the defendant’s vehicle. The plaintiff went to the emergency room complaining of neck and low back pain. After the emergency room, however, her treatment focused on shoulder pain, eventually requiring surgery. She presented testimony from her shoulder surgeon, but did not provide other testimony on the reasonability or necessity of her medical treatment and bills. The defendant presented expert testimony denying that her shoulder injuries were related to the accident. Neither party presented evidence directly on the causation of the plaintiff’s emergency room treatment. The jury returned a verdict finding the defendant liable but awarding no damages. Shumate v. Mitchell presented a similar, but slightly different scenario. ___ Va. ___, 822 S.E.2d 9 (2018). Like Gilliam, the plaintiff in Shumate was the driver of the front car in a rear-end accident. The plaintiff in Shumate, however, had a long and ongoing history of treatment for pain similar to what she claimed in the accident. She went to...
by KPMLAW | Mar 25, 2019 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
Written by Joseph Smith, Esq. Edited by Rachel Riordan, Esq. What remedies does a claimant have when he is injured while working for an uninsured contractor? Can he assert his claim against the owner of the construction project as his statutory employer? Does it matter if the owner has no involvement with the construction other than financing it? In Jeffreys v. the Uninsured Employer’s Fund, et. al., Record No. 171467 (Feb. 14, 2019), the Supreme Court of Virginia (the “Court”) recently considered the issue of whether a historical society could be a statutory employer under the Act. In Jeffreys, the Harvey School Historical Society (the “Historical Society”), founded by California resident Annie Mosby, sought to purchase a school building in Pittsylvania County to restore it, maintain it, and preserve it as a historical site. Id. at 2. The Historical Society became an auxiliary of the Mount Lebanon Missionary Baptist Church (the “Church”) to obtain a tax-exempt status. Id. The Church allowed the Historical Society to meet on the premises but otherwise provided no financial support to the Historical Society. Id. Mosby hired William Johnson, an unlicensed contractor, to plan and perform the renovation. Id. Mosby was present only briefly at the beginning of the project and she had no construction experience, nor did she exercise control over Johnson or the work being performed. Id. Johnson initially only worked with one other individual on the project, but later requested permission to hire the Claimant as well. Id. at 2-3. Johnson was considered the “boss” on the job, and he exclusively managed the Claimant’s work. Id. at 3. While working on...
by KPMLAW | Mar 25, 2019 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
Written by Henry U. Moore, Esq. Edited by Bill Pfund, Esq. Removal of a lawsuit from state court to federal court can often be an advantageous strategy move by a defendant in Virginia. This is primarily because federal courts are far more willing than Virginia state courts to grant summary judgment to a defendant when a plaintiff has failed to present a viable case for trial. Federal courts also move cases along more quickly than state courts, as exemplified by the nickname of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, often referred to as the “Rocket Docket.” But there are limits to how, and when, a defendant may remove a case to federal court. A case is removable to federal court only if (1) it presents a question of federal statutory or constitutional law (“federal question jurisdiction”) or (2) it involves adverse parties which are citizens of different states and an amount in controversy over $75,000 (“diversity jurisdiction”). If the initial complaint filed by the plaintiff in state court presents one of the above grounds for removal, a defendant has 30 days from receipt of the complaint (by service or otherwise) to remove the case to federal court. 28 U.S. Code § 1446(b)(1). But what if the plaintiff’s initial complaint does not provide a basis for removal – can the case ever be removed to federal court? 28 USCS § 1446(b)(3) specifies that “if the case stated by the initial pleading is not removable, a notice of removal may be filed within 30 days after receipt by the defendant…of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order...
