Every claim cognizable against the Commonwealth or a transportation district under this article shall be forever barred, unless within one year after the cause of action accrues to the claimant the notice of claim required by § 8.01-195.6 is properly filed. An action may be commenced pursuant to § 8.01-195.4 (i) upon denial of the claim by the Attorney General or the Director of the Division of Risk Management or, in the case of a transportation district, by the chairman of the commission of that district or (ii) after the expiration of six months from the date of filing the notice of claim unless, within that period, the claim has been compromised and discharged pursuant to § 8.01-195.5. All claims against the Commonwealth or a transportation district under this article shall be forever barred unless such action is commenced within 18 months of the filing of the notice of claim, or within two years after the cause of action accrues.
The limitations periods prescribed by this section and § 8.01-195.6 shall be subject to the tolling provision of § 8.01-229 and the pleading provision of § 8.01-235. Additionally, claims involving medical malpractice in which the notice required by this section and § 8.01-195.6 has been given shall be subject to the provisions of § 8.01-581.9. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, if notice of claim against the Commonwealth was filed prior to July 1, 1984, any claimant so filing shall have two years from the date such notice was filed within which to commence an action pursuant to § 8.01-195.4.
1981, c. 449; 1984, cc. 638, 698; 1985, c. 514; 1986, c. 584; 1988, cc. 778, 801; 1992, c. 796; 2016, c. 772.
Notes of Decisions
William Battle, III v. J. Ledford, 912 F.3d 708 (4th Cir. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-195.7 . The claimant must file a complaint in court "within 18 months of the filing of the notice of claim, or within two years after the cause of action accrues.”
Ogunde v. Commonwealth, 628 S.E.2d 370 (Va. 2006).
· cites it 5× “2, and not by the statute of limitations prescribed by Code § 8.01-195.7 for actions brought under the Act.”
Sisk v. Commonwealth, 56 Va. Cir. 230 (Charlottesville Cir. Ct. 2001).
· cites it 6× “In accordance with Virginia Code § 8.01-195.7, Plaintiff was required to commence her action within the Statute of Limitations.”
Miller v. Univ. of Virginia Med. Ctr., 58 Va. Cir. 240 (2002).
· cites it 6× “…against the Commonwealth commenced pursuant to the VTCA, “the Commonwealth shall be the proper party defendant.” Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-195.7 .”
Dawn Lewis Williams v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 36× “Further, Code § 8.01-195.7 establishes that a claimant may only proceed with a lawsuit (1) “upon denial of the claim by the Attorney General or the Director of the Division of Risk Management” or (2) “after the expiration of six months from the date of filing the notice of claim…”
Hankins v. Commonwealth, 63 Va. Cir. 211 (Lynchburg Cir. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 2× “The statute of limitations set forth in § 8.01-195.7 of the Virginia Tort Claims Act is expressly subject to the tolling provisions of § 8.”
Carter v. Commonwealth, 67 Va. Cir. 308 (Charlottesville Cir. Ct. 2005).
· cites it 6× “See Va. Code § 8.01-195.7. Both sides filed briefs on the issue, and the Court heard oral arguments on April 26, 2005.”
White v. Commonwealth, 22 Va. Cir. 275 (Washington Cir. Ct. 1990).
· cites it 2× “of the Code). Section 8.01-195.6 of the Act requires a written statement of the nature of the claim to be filed with the Attorney General "within one year after such cause of action shall have accrued .”
Kyong Sik Kim v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. Cir. 116 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1994).
· cites it 6× “” Virginia Code § 8.01-195.7. At the hearing, Plaintiff testified that no such notice had been given to either the Division of Risk Management or the Attorney General as ex *117 plicitly required by statute.”
Dallas v. Craft (E.D. Va. 2022).
· cites it 2× “Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-195.7 . 52 the caption of that count.”
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.