A. 1. Whenever, following due investigation of a claim for compensation benefits, the Commission determines that (i) the employer of record has failed to comply with the provisions of § 65.2-801 or that a self-insured employer or its surety as required by § 65.2-801 is unable to satisfy an award in whole or in part, and (ii) the claim is compensable, the Commission shall make a provisional award of compensation benefits, or any unpaid balance thereof, without further delay. Thereafter, the Commission shall make a final award concerning such benefits or unpaid balance thereof, in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and all applicable provisions of this title. The Commission shall order payment of any award of compensation benefits pursuant to this chapter from the Uninsured Employer's Fund.
2. After an award has been entered against an employer for compensation benefits under any provision of this chapter, and upon finding that the employer has failed to comply with the provisions of § 65.2-801, or that a self-insured employer or its surety as required by § 65.2-801 is unable to satisfy an award in whole or in part, the Commission shall order the award, or any unpaid balance, to be paid from the Uninsured Employer's Fund after demand has been made by a claimant upon his employer or other uninsured entity which is responsible to pay the award. Such demand may be waived by the Commission for good cause shown.
B. For the purposes of this chapter, an employer who is a former member of a group self-insurance association or group self-insurance pool whose license has been terminated by the State Corporation Commission and whose security deposit with the State Treasurer or surety coverage has been exhausted shall be deemed to be an uninsured employer not in compliance with § 65.2-801. For all such uninsured employers, the Attorney General, or his designee, shall enforce the right of subrogation and recoupment as provided in § 65.2-1204.
1977, c. 345, § 65.1-149; 1983, c. 460; 1988, c. 604; 1991, c. 355; 1993, c. 624; 1997, c. 131; 2009, cc. 285, 336.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case:
Jeneary v. Commonwealth, 551 S.E.2d 321 (Va. 2001).
Jeneary v. Commonwealth, 551 S.E.2d 321 (Va. 2001).
· cites it 6× “Consequently, the administrator asserted a claim, pursuant to Code § 65.2-1203, against the Uninsured Employer’s Fund (the Fund) for Jeneary’s medical and funeral *423 expenses.”
Uninsured Emp.'s Fund v. Flanary, 497 S.E.2d 912 (Va. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 10× “Instead, by order of the commission, the Coal Producers Group’s liability for 85/90ths of the award was paid by the Fund pursuant to Code § 65.2-1203(A). Rockwood Insurance paid its portion of the award as a lump sum.”
Uninsured Emp.'s Fund v. Mounts, 484 S.E.2d 140 (Va. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 4× “Therefore, the Fund argues, it cannot be held liable under Code § 65.2-1203(A). Code § 65.2-1203(A) provides as follows: Whenever, following due investigation of a claim for compensation benefits, the Commission determines that (i) the employer of record has failed to comply…”
Sneed v. Morengo, Inc., 450 S.E.2d 167 (Va. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 2× “Moreover, Code § 65.2-1203(A) limits an award from the Fund to those circumstances where “the [c]ommission determines that .”
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. The Est. of Phillip Harrison, 765 S.E.2d 154 (Va. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 4× “Pertinent to this issue, Code § 65.2-1203(A) provides as follows: Whenever, following due investigation of a claim for compensation benefits, the Commission determines that (i) the employer of record has failed to comply with the provisions of § 65.”
Falls Church Constr. Corp. v. Valle, 464 S.E.2d 517 (Va. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “Compare Code § 65.2-1203 (setting forth the procedure by which the Virginia Uninsured Employer’s Fund acts as an insurer for uninsured employers).”
Uninsured Emp.'s Fund v. Mounts, 497 S.E.2d 464 (Va. 1998).
· cites it 2× “Thus, the Attorney General argues, because the Fund can be responsible for an award only “upon a finding that the employer has failed to comply with the provisions of § 65.”
Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Ely, 640 S.E.2d 520 (Va. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 4× “Two days later, the employer asked Travelers to renew the prior policy and to provide retroactive coverage for the employee's injury.”
The Uninsured Emp.'s Fund v. William R. Carter (Va. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 12× “The June 14, 2012 order did not cite that Carter had demanded payment from Best Brands or that the commission found good cause for waiving such demand, pursuant to Code § 65.2-1203, and does not reflect that the commission ordered the Fund to pay the interest on the March 28,…”
Redifer v. Chester (Va. 2012).
· cites it 2× “…payment of compensation benefits owed by an uninsured employer that fails to pay benefits ordered by the Commission. Code § 65.2-1203. 8”
— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-1203(A) — 6 cases
Uninsured Emp.'s Fund v. Flanary, 497 S.E.2d 912 (Va. Ct. App. 1998).
“Instead, by order of the commission, the Coal Producers Group’s liability for 85/90ths of the award was paid by the Fund pursuant to Code § 65.2-1203(A). Rockwood Insurance paid its portion of the award as a lump sum.”
Uninsured Emp.'s Fund v. Mounts, 484 S.E.2d 140 (Va. Ct. App. 1997).
“Therefore, the Fund argues, it cannot be held liable under Code § 65.2-1203(A). Code § 65.2-1203(A) provides as follows: Whenever, following due investigation of a claim for compensation benefits, the Commission determines that (i) the employer of record has failed to comply…”
Sneed v. Morengo, Inc., 450 S.E.2d 167 (Va. Ct. App. 1994).
“Moreover, Code § 65.2-1203(A) limits an award from the Fund to those circumstances where “the [c]ommission determines that .”
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. The Est. of Phillip Harrison, 765 S.E.2d 154 (Va. Ct. App. 2014).
“Pertinent to this issue, Code § 65.2-1203(A) provides as follows: Whenever, following due investigation of a claim for compensation benefits, the Commission determines that (i) the employer of record has failed to comply with the provisions of § 65.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-1203(A)(1) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-1203(A)(2) — 2 cases
Uninsured Emp.'s Fund v. Mounts, 497 S.E.2d 464 (Va. 1998).
“Thus, the Attorney General argues, because the Fund can be responsible for an award only “upon a finding that the employer has failed to comply with the provisions of § 65.”
The Uninsured Emp.'s Fund v. William R. Carter (Va. Ct. App. 2013).
“The June 14, 2012 order did not cite that Carter had demanded payment from Best Brands or that the commission found good cause for waiving such demand, pursuant to Code § 65.2-1203, and does not reflect that the commission ordered the Fund to pay the interest on the March 28,…”
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.