Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
18 Virginia opinions name it 7 courts 1947–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Virginia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Government Employees v. UNITED SERVICESgreen2 sentences2017Ass'n, 281 Va. 647 , 657, 708 S.E.2d 877 , 883 (2011) (explaining that " Code § 38.2-2204, the omnibus clause, is a remedial statute enacted to serve the public policy of broadening the coverage of automobile liability insurance for the protection of the injured persons"). 2017Ass'n, 281 Va. 647 , 657, 708 S.E.2d 877 , 883 (2011) (explaining that " Code § 38.2-2204, the omnibus clause, is a remedial statute enacted to serve the public policy of broadening the coverage of automobile liability insurance for the protection of the injured persons"). | 1 | 2 |
City of Norfolk v. Ingramgreen1 sentence2008The Supreme Court in construing this omnibus clause has stated that “[w]e have found no prior Virginia case discussing the loss of omnibus coverage because the bailee operated the owner’s car in a manner violating the owner’s instructions.” 235 Va. at 437 (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1 |
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Geico Indemnity Co.green1 sentence2000In defining implied permission ... this Court has been liberal in its interpretation and application and has gone far in holding insurance carriers liable. 241 Va. at 330, 331 (italics added). | 1 | 1 |
Cartos v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.green2 sentences1947See Cartos v. Hartford Acci., etc., Co., 160 Va. 505 , 169 S. E. 594 ; Royal Indemnity Co. v. Hook, 155 Va. 956 , 157 S. E. 414 ; Maryland Cas. 1947See Cartos v. Hartford Acci., etc., Co., 160 Va. 505 , 169 S. E. 594 ; Royal Indemnity Co. v. Hook, 155 Va. 956 , 157 S. E. 414 ; Maryland Cas. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. City of Richmondgreen2 sentences1992But see Williams, 111 Va. at 486-87, 14 S.E.2d at 289-91 (invalidating an omnibus clause which sought to tax “any person, firm, association, partnership, or corporation engaged in any business, occupation or profession”). 1992But see Williams, 111 Va. at 486-87, 14 S.E.2d at 289-91 (invalidating an omnibus clause which sought to tax “any person, firm, association, partnership, or corporation engaged in any business, occupation or profession”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
The Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Harlow
green
2 sentences1997The Supreme Court of Virginia has stated "that before the person using the automobile becomes an additional assured under the omnibus clause, permission must be expressly or impliedly given for that use.” Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Harlow, 191 Va. 64 , 59 S.E.2d 872 (1950). 1997The Supreme Court of Virginia has stated "that before the person using the automobile becomes an additional assured under the omnibus clause, permission must be expressly or impliedly given for that use.” Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Harlow, 191 Va. 64 , 59 S.E.2d 872 (1950). | 4 | 1958–1997 |
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Cook
green
2 sentences1962Co. v. Cook, 186 Va. 658, 665 , 43 S. E. 2d 863 , we said that before a person becomes an additional insured under the omnibus clause, permission to use the vehicle must be expressly or impliedly given for that use. 1962Co. v. Cook, 186 Va. 658, 665 , 43 S. E. 2d 863 , we said that before a person becomes an additional insured under the omnibus clause, permission to use the vehicle must be expressly or impliedly given for that use. | 3 | 1958–1962 |
American Motorists Insurance v. Kaplan
green
2 sentences1975Hardware Mutual Casualty Company v. General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation, Ltd., 212 Va. 780 , 188 S.E.2d 218 (1972); Hardware Mutual Casualty Company v. Celina Mutual Insurance Company, 209 Va. 60 , 161 S.E.2d 680 (1968); American Motorists Insurance Company v. Kaplan, 209 Va. 53 , 161 S.E.2d 675 (1968). 1975Hardware Mutual Casualty Company v. General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation, Ltd., 212 Va. 780 , 188 S.E.2d 218 (1972); Hardware Mutual Casualty Company v. Celina Mutual Insurance Company, 209 Va. 60 , 161 S.E.2d 680 (1968); American Motorists Insurance Company v. Kaplan, 209 Va. 53 , 161 S.E.2d 675 (1968). | 2 | 1972–1975 |
Robinson v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of NY
green
2 sentences2011In Robinson v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 190 Va. 368 , 57 S.E.2d 93 (1950), we considered the argument that operation of the vehicle by a second permittee beyond the scope of permission granted by the first permittee negated coverage of the second permittee under the omnibus clause. 2011In Robinson v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 190 Va. 368 , 57 S.E.2d 93 (1950), we considered the argument that operation of the vehicle by a second permittee beyond the scope of permission granted by the first permittee negated coverage of the second permittee under the omnibus clause. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Hartford Fire Insurance v. Davis
green
1 sentence2008This Court finds that the Defendant has carried its burden of proof (see Davis, 246 Va. at 498 ) consistent with a reasonable construction of the omnibus clause and that, on the date in question, Willard operated his vehicle within the implied permission of his employer. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Continental Insurance v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
green
2 sentences2003Id. at 212 , 380 S.E.2d at 663 . 2003Id. at 212 , 380 S.E.2d at 663 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State Capital Insurance v. Mutual Assurance Society
green
2 sentences2003Co. v. The Mutual Assurance Soc. of Virginia, 218 Va. 815 , 241 S.E.2d 759 (1978), we considered whether a contract of general liability insurance was covered by the omnibus clause because the policy contained a watercraft endorsement for boats of a certain horsepower. 2003Co. v. The Mutual Assurance Soc. of Virginia, 218 Va. 815 , 241 S.E.2d 759 (1978), we considered whether a contract of general liability insurance was covered by the omnibus clause because the policy contained a watercraft endorsement for boats of a certain horsepower. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Walker v. Vanderpool
green
1 sentence1983Thus even though parties in non-automobile situations may contract as they wish regarding insurance (see Walker v. Vanderpool, 225 Va. 266 (1983)) no insurer may contract away the Virginia statutory omnibus clause, either directly or indirectly, to the possible detriment of third parties. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. Celina Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences1975Hardware Mutual Casualty Company v. General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation, Ltd., 212 Va. 780 , 188 S.E.2d 218 (1972); Hardware Mutual Casualty Company v. Celina Mutual Insurance Company, 209 Va. 60 , 161 S.E.2d 680 (1968); American Motorists Insurance Company v. Kaplan, 209 Va. 53 , 161 S.E.2d 675 (1968). 1975Hardware Mutual Casualty Company v. General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation, Ltd., 212 Va. 780 , 188 S.E.2d 218 (1972); Hardware Mutual Casualty Company v. Celina Mutual Insurance Company, 209 Va. 60 , 161 S.E.2d 680 (1968); American Motorists Insurance Company v. Kaplan, 209 Va. 53 , 161 S.E.2d 675 (1968). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp.
green
2 sentences1975Hardware Mutual Casualty Company v. General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation, Ltd., 212 Va. 780 , 188 S.E.2d 218 (1972); Hardware Mutual Casualty Company v. Celina Mutual Insurance Company, 209 Va. 60 , 161 S.E.2d 680 (1968); American Motorists Insurance Company v. Kaplan, 209 Va. 53 , 161 S.E.2d 675 (1968). 1975Hardware Mutual Casualty Company v. General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation, Ltd., 212 Va. 780 , 188 S.E.2d 218 (1972); Hardware Mutual Casualty Company v. Celina Mutual Insurance Company, 209 Va. 60 , 161 S.E.2d 680 (1968); American Motorists Insurance Company v. Kaplan, 209 Va. 53 , 161 S.E.2d 675 (1968). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America
green
2 sentences1968This court upheld the restriction and stated that the statute required “every automobile liability policy sold in Virginia to contain an omnibus clause extending the same coverage as that given the named insured to one legally operating the car with the owner’s permission, express or implied.” (Italics supplied.) We further said: “This construction does not mean that the owner of a motor vehicle is compelled to carry liability insurance, nor does it mean that the insured and the insurer may not agree to incorporate in their contract reasonable restrictions of coverage as to time, place, use an 1968This court upheld the restriction and stated that the statute required “every automobile liability policy sold in Virginia to contain an omnibus clause extending the same coverage as that given the named insured to one legally operating the car with the owner’s permission, express or implied.” (Italics supplied.) We further said: “This construction does not mean that the owner of a motor vehicle is compelled to carry liability insurance, nor does it mean that the insured and the insurer may not agree to incorporate in their contract reasonable restrictions of coverage as to time, place, use an | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Brower v. Employers' Liability Assurance Co.
green
1 sentence1952It is interesting to note that denial of liability of the insurance company in the Brower Case, supra, was based partly upon the exception in the omnibus clause “that the protection granted * * * shall not be available * * * to an automobile repair shop. ’ ’ Such exception, it was said, “was intended to exclude those engaged in the business of repairing automobiles, as this mechanic was.” ( 177 A., at page 830 .) The omnibus clause in the policy before us, in almost identical language, provides that “The insurance with respect to any person or organization other than the named Insured does not | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Royal Indemnity Co. v. Hook
green
2 sentences1947See Cartos v. Hartford Acci., etc., Co., 160 Va. 505 , 169 S. E. 594 ; Royal Indemnity Co. v. Hook, 155 Va. 956 , 157 S. E. 414 ; Maryland Cas. 1947See Cartos v. Hartford Acci., etc., Co., 160 Va. 505 , 169 S. E. 594 ; Royal Indemnity Co. v. Hook, 155 Va. 956 , 157 S. E. 414 ; Maryland Cas. | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.