Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-223 (2026)

Lack of privity no defense in certain cases

✓ current as of May 2026

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

In cases not provided for in § 8.2-318 where recovery of damages for injury to person, including death, or to property resulting from negligence is sought, lack of privity between the parties shall be no defense.

Code 1950, § 8-654.4; 1966, c. 439; 1977, c. 617.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 45 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2023 · leading case: Blake Const. Co., Inc. v. Alley, 353 S.E.2d 724 (Va. 1987).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Blake Const. Co., Inc. v. Alley, 353 S.E.2d 724 (Va. 1987). · cites it 11× “Ballou and Justice demurred to Blake’s original and amended motions for judgment, relying on the common-law rule that a party not in privity may not recover damages where there is no physical injury to person or property.”

Sensenbrenner v. Rust, Orling & Neale, Architects, Inc., 374 S.E.2d 55 (Va. 1988). · cites it 6× “12(b)(6) on the ground that the complaints had failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted. The defendants took the position that the plaintiffs claimed damages only for economic loss, for which there could be no recovery in tort in the absence of privity.”

Ward v. Ernst & Young, 435 S.E.2d 628 (Va. 1993). · cites it 9× “On appeal, the general contractor invoked Code § 8.01-223 which provides that “where recovery of damages for injury to person, including death, or to property resulting from negligence is sought, lack of privity between the parties shall be no defense.”

Copenhaver v. Rogers, 384 S.E.2d 593 (Va. 1989). · cites it 2× “We hold that the trial court was correct in ruling that the Copenhavers have no cause of action in tort against Rogers, absent privity.”

Bay Point Condo. Ass'n v. RML Corp., 52 Va. Cir. 432 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2000). · cites it 5× “The Virginia Supreme Court held that Code § 8.01-223, being in derogation of the common law rule of privity in tort actions, was to be strictly construed according to its terms.”

Hess v. Snyder Hunt Corp., 392 S.E.2d 817 (Va. 1990). · cites it 2× “With the abolition of lack of privity as a defense, Code § 8.01-223, architects, engineers, and building contractors may be subject to liability.”

John C. Holland Enter., Inc. v. J.P. Mascaro & Sons, Inc., 653 F. Supp. 1242 (E.D. Va. 1987). · cites it 3× “Code of Virginia § 8.01-223, enacted in 1966, specifically provided that “where recovery of damages for injury to person .”

Obenshain v. Halliday, 504 F. Supp. 946 (E.D. Va. 1980). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, Count VII of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, as it relates to the County, is dismissed.”

Powell v. Diehl Woodworking Mach., Inc., 198 F. Supp. 3d 628 (E.D. Va. 2016). · cites it 2× “2-318 , which states that lack of privity between a plaintiff and defendant does not constitute a defense for either breach of warranty or negligence actions brought against a product manufacturer or seller.”

Chisholm v. UHP Projects, Inc., 30 F. Supp. 2d 928 (E.D. Va. 1998). · cites it 6× “In relation to the “implied warranty” count, the plaintiff wanted to apply admiralty law. In Virginia, contractual “privity” is necessary to sustain a cause of action, unless the case involves negligence or economic damage to property, or involves a manufacturer or seller of…”

Branin v. TMC Enter., LLC, 832 F. Supp. 2d 646 (W.D. Va. 2011). · cites it 2× “” Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-223 ; Blake Constr., 233 Va.”

Bryant Elec. Co., Inc. v. City of Fredericksburg & Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 762 F.2d 1192 (4th Cir. 1985). “Code of Virginia § 8.01-223 (1950), as amended.”

Show all 45 citing cases →

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.