<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Virginia Lawyers Weekly &#187; Insurance</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/insurance/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 16:06:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>No UM/UIM ‘Stacking’ for Policy Omission&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/21/no-umuim-stacking-for-policy-omission/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/21/no-umuim-stacking-for-policy-omission/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 13:38:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sarah Rodriguez</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Barbara Milano Keenan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74458</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although an auto liability policy failed to specify any specific amount of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage provided, that omission did not mean the policy terms prohibiting “stacking,” or combining coverage for multiple insured vehicles, were ambiguous under Virginia law and would allow stacking, and the 4th Circuit affirms the district court’s denial of additional coverage to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/21/no-umuim-stacking-for-policy-omission/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Policy Exclusion for ‘BUI’ Damage&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/policy-exclusion-for-bui-damage/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/policy-exclusion-for-bui-damage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 13:46:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Henry E. Hudson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74363</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An insurance company is not obligated to provide coverage to defendant yacht owner for damages after his boat collided with an anchored sailboat off the coast of Middlesex County and the owner was convicted of boating “under the influence.” The sailing vessel defendant owner struck, owned by Carol and Alan Herrie, sustained significant damage including [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/policy-exclusion-for-bui-damage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Failure-to-Insure Claim Assignment is Valid&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/failure-to-insure-claim-assignment-is-valid/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/failure-to-insure-claim-assignment-is-valid/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 13:17:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert E. Payne]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74352</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Plaintiff Cincinnati Insurance Company, as assignee of a claim against defendant insurance broker and his agency, may sue those defendants for failure to place property insurance on a property that was damaged by fire after the prior insurance had lapsed; the Richmond U.S. District Court says the assignment is valid. Defendants are broker John Ruch [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/failure-to-insure-claim-assignment-is-valid/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hospitals must bill health insurance first&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/19/hospitals-must-bill-health-insurance-first/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/19/hospitals-must-bill-health-insurance-first/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:43:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Vieth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bar Associations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General Assembly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gov. Bob McDonnell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73844</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Trial lawyers hope a new Virginia law will put an end to a hospital billing tactic that threatened to take a bite out of accident victims’ compensation. The General Assembly passed, and Gov. Bob McDonnell signed, a bill requiring hospitals to bill patients’ private health insurance, when available, rather than holding out for a larger [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/19/hospitals-must-bill-health-insurance-first/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Plywood Flying from Pickup Truck is ‘Auto Accident’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/05/plywood-flying-from-pickup-truck-is-auto-accident/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/05/plywood-flying-from-pickup-truck-is-auto-accident/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:49:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Clifford R. Weckstein]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roanoke Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73619</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Roanoke City Circuit Court says two employees of a remodeling company were “using” a pickup truck under Virginia law when they loaded a piece of plywood into the truck bed, and auto liability policies of the truck owner and its driver provide coverage for injuries suffered by a pedestrian who was struck by the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/05/plywood-flying-from-pickup-truck-is-auto-accident/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Interpleader Granted Pending ‘Slayer’ Decision&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/20/interpleader-granted-pending-slayer-decision/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/20/interpleader-granted-pending-slayer-decision/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:33:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Robert S. Ballou]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Western District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73302</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this dispute over life insurance benefits claimed by a man suspected of killing his wife, a Roanoke U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge recommends granting the insurance company’s motion for interpleader of the policy proceeds, pending a determination of whether the man is disqualified as a “slayer” under Virginia law from receiving insurance benefits. The [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/20/interpleader-granted-pending-slayer-decision/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Consent to Tax on Flood Insurance Premiums&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/14/no-consent-to-tax-on-flood-insurance-premiums/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/14/no-consent-to-tax-on-flood-insurance-premiums/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:49:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Roger L. Gregory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73173</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this dispute between insurance companies that offer flood insurance under a federal program in South Carolina, and a group of South Carolina municipalities that want to assess a business license tax on the carriers based on the flood insurance premiums collected in the municipalities under an arrangement with FEMA, the district court erred in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/14/no-consent-to-tax-on-flood-insurance-premiums/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Defamation Defense Under Renter’s Policy&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/14/no-defamation-defense-under-renters-policy/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/14/no-defamation-defense-under-renters-policy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:46:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Andre M. Davis]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73169</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although a parent defending a defamation suit says her only intention in accusing an aide at the Maryland School for the Deaf of sexually abusing her son was to protect the child, the accusation nevertheless was an intentional act, and not an “occurrence” under her renter’s insurance policy that would trigger Allstate’s duty to defend; [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/14/no-defamation-defense-under-renters-policy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>‘Slayer’ Rule Not Barred by Insanity Defense&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/13/slayer-rule-not-barred-by-insanity-defense/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/13/slayer-rule-not-barred-by-insanity-defense/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:25:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Donald W. Lemons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73144</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A man with a history of mental illness who was found not guilty by reason of insanity for the murder of his mother is a “slayer” under Va. Code § 55-401 and is barred from recovering from her estate; the Supreme Court of Virginia affirms judgment for the slayer’s brothers who are beneficiaries of the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/13/slayer-rule-not-barred-by-insanity-defense/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CGL Excludes Performance Related Claims&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/12/cgl-excludes-performance-related-claims/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/12/cgl-excludes-performance-related-claims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2013 16:25:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Henry E. Hudson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73099</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In homeowners’ action under the commercial general liability policy of a bankrupt construction contractor, the Richmond U.S. District Court grants insurer summary judgment: homeowners’ asserted grounds of relief—fraud, misrepresentation and breach of contract—are all performance-related and expressly excluded under policy terms standard in the industry. Property owners contracted with construction contractor to repair flood damage [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/12/cgl-excludes-performance-related-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
