Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 38.2-312 (2026)

Provisions limiting jurisdiction, or requiring construction of contracts by law of other states, prohibited

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

No insurance contract delivered or issued for delivery in this Commonwealth and covering subjects which are located or residing in this Commonwealth, or which are performed in this Commonwealth shall contain any condition, stipulation or agreement:

1. Requiring the contract to be construed according to the laws of any other state or country, except as may be necessary to meet the requirements of the motor vehicle financial responsibility laws of the other state or country; or

2. Depriving the courts of this Commonwealth of jurisdiction in actions against the insurer.

Any such condition, stipulation or agreement shall be void, but such voiding shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the contract.

1952, c. 317, § 38.1-339; 1986, c. 562.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2017–2026 · leading case: Minnieland Private Day Sch., Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co., 867 F.3d 449 (4th Cir. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Minnieland Private Day Sch., Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co., 867 F.3d 449 (4th Cir. 2017). · cites it 5× “The district court initially granted Applied Underwriters’ motion, holding that “the arbitration provision in the [RPA] requires that an arbitrator decide whether the parties’ contract is subject to Va. Code § 38.2-312.” Minnieland Private Day School, Inc.”

Minnieland Private Day Sch., Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co., 913 F.3d 409 (4th Cir. 2019). “Because arbitration provisions in insurance contracts are void under Virginia law, Va. Code § 38.2-312, AUCRA must face Minnieland's claims in court.”

Adroit Health Grp., LLC v. Darlene Reeves (Va. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 37× “Appellants contend the circuit court erred by interpreting Code § 38.2-312 to prohibit enforcement of Adroit’s mandatory arbitration clause.”

Erisman v. Axis Ins. Co. (W.D. Va. 2025). · cites it 31× “[d]epriving the courts of this Commonwealth of jurisdiction in actions against the insurer. Any such condition, stipulation or agreement shall be void, but such voiding shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the contract.”

Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co. v. Harper's Mill Homeowners Ass'n (E.D. Va. 2025). · cites it 14× “Under Va. Code Ann. § 38.2-312 , an insurance contract is void when it “[d]epriv[es] the courts of this Commonwealth of jurisdiction in actions against the insurer.”

— Va. Code Ann. § 38.2-312(2) — 1 case

Adroit Health Grp., LLC v. Darlene Reeves (Va. Ct. App. 2026). “Appellants contend the circuit court erred by interpreting Code § 38.2-312 to prohibit enforcement of Adroit’s mandatory arbitration clause.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.