10 Virginia opinions name it 5 courts 1936–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Byrumgreen2 sentences1968This court recently repeated in General Accident v. Aetna, supra, 208 Va. at 473 , 158 S.E.2d at 754 , quoting from U.S.F. & G. v. Byrum, 206 Va. 815, 818 , 146 S.E.2d 246, 248 , that subsection (f) of § 38.1-381 “is the only provision in the uninsured motorist law which permits subrogation.” Subsection (f) provided in part: “Any insurer paying a claim under the endorsement or provisions required by paragraph (b) of this section shall be subrogated to the rights of the insured to whom such claim was paid against the person causing such injury, death or damage to the extent that payment was mad 1968This court recently repeated in General Accident v. Aetna, supra, 208 Va. at 473 , 158 S.E.2d at 754 , quoting from U.S.F. & G. v. Byrum, 206 Va. 815, 818 , 146 S.E.2d 246, 248 , that subsection (f) of § 38.1-381 “is the only provision in the uninsured motorist law which permits subrogation.” Subsection (f) provided in part: “Any insurer paying a claim under the endorsement or provisions required by paragraph (b) of this section shall be subrogated to the rights of the insured to whom such claim was paid against the person causing such injury, death or damage to the extent that payment was mad | 1 | 3 |
Brenner v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp.green2 sentences2010Brenner v. Lawyers Title Insurance Corp., 240 Va. 185, 189, 192 , 397 S.E.2d 100, 102, 104 (1990); [2] Reisen v. Aetna Life & Cas. 2010Brenner v. Lawyers Title Insurance Corp., 240 Va. 185, 189, 192 , 397 S.E.2d 100, 102, 104 (1990); [2] Reisen v. Aetna Life & Cas. | 1 | 1 |
Travelers Insurance Company v. Harry L. Riggs, Jr. Mabel v. Reidgreen1 sentence2002Co. v. Riggs, 671 F.2d 810, 813 (4th Cir. 1982) (stating that if the insured has a claim, it is a real party in interest in whose sole name the action may be prosecuted under general principles of subrogation). | 1 | 1 |
Harleysville Mutual Insurance Company v. Dollinsgreen2 sentences2000See, Insurance Co. v. Dollins, 201 Va. 73, 77 , 109 S.E.2d 405, 409 (1959).” Hill v. State Farm Mut. 2000See, Insurance Co. v. Dollins, 201 Va. 73, 77 , 109 S.E.2d 405, 409 (1959).” Hill v. State Farm Mut. | 1 | 1 |
United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Nationwide Mutual Insurancegreen1 sentence1989See United Services v. Nationwide Mutual, 218 Va. 861 (1978), and the earlier line of cases. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Mabry
green
2 sentences1999The specific issue addressed in State Farm was “whether the trial court properly determined that an insurer was estopped from litigating whether its insured’s acts were negligent or intentional based on a judgment in a prior tort action in which the insurer provided the insured a defense under a reservation of rights.” Id. at 288 , 497 S.E.2d at 845 . 1999The specific issue addressed in State Farm was “whether the trial court properly determined that an insurer was estopped from litigating whether its insured’s acts were negligent or intentional based on a judgment in a prior tort action in which the insurer provided the insured a defense under a reservation of rights.” Id. at 288 , 497 S.E.2d at 845 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
green
2 sentences1968This court recently repeated in General Accident v. Aetna, supra, 208 Va. at 473 , 158 S.E.2d at 754 , quoting from U.S.F. & G. v. Byrum, 206 Va. 815, 818 , 146 S.E.2d 246, 248 , that subsection (f) of § 38.1-381 “is the only provision in the uninsured motorist law which permits subrogation.” Subsection (f) provided in part: “Any insurer paying a claim under the endorsement or provisions required by paragraph (b) of this section shall be subrogated to the rights of the insured to whom such claim was paid against the person causing such injury, death or damage to the extent that payment was mad 1968This court recently repeated in General Accident v. Aetna, supra, 208 Va. at 473 , 158 S.E.2d at 754 , quoting from U.S.F. & G. v. Byrum, 206 Va. 815, 818 , 146 S.E.2d 246, 248 , that subsection (f) of § 38.1-381 “is the only provision in the uninsured motorist law which permits subrogation.” Subsection (f) provided in part: “Any insurer paying a claim under the endorsement or provisions required by paragraph (b) of this section shall be subrogated to the rights of the insured to whom such claim was paid against the person causing such injury, death or damage to the extent that payment was mad | 1 | 1968–1968 |
White v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
neutral
1 sentence1968While the precise question has never been before this court, Chief Judge Dalton, in White v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 245 F. Supp. 1 (D. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Hoge
green
2 sentences1936In support of the first contention plaintiff cites and relies upon Maryland Casualty Co. v. Hoge, 153 Va. 204 , 149 S. E. 448 . 1936In support of the first contention plaintiff cites and relies upon Maryland Casualty Co. v. Hoge, 153 Va. 204 , 149 S. E. 448 . | 1 | 1936–1936 |
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.