Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-250.1 (2026)

Limitation on actions involving removal of asbestos

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Notwithstanding the provisions of § 8.01-234 or any other section in this chapter, every action against a manufacturer or supplier of asbestos or material containing asbestos brought by or on behalf of any agency of the Commonwealth incorporated for charitable or educational purposes; counties, cities or towns; or school boards, to recover for (i) removal of asbestos or materials containing asbestos from any building owned or used by such entity, (ii) other measures taken to correct or ameliorate any problem related to asbestos in such building or (iii) reimbursement for such removal, correction or amelioration which would otherwise be barred prior to July 1, 1990, as a result of expiration of the applicable period of limitation, is hereby revived or extended. Any action thereon may be commenced prior to July 1, 1990.

1985, c. 262; 1986, c. 458.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1986–2014 · leading case: Sch. Bd. v. United States Gypsum Co., 360 S.E.2d 325 (Va. 1987).
Sch. Bd. v. United States Gypsum Co., 360 S.E.2d 325 (Va. 1987). · cites it 35× “[1] In response, the plaintiffs contended that this statute merely barred the right of action, and that Code § 8.01-250.1 as amended effective April 6, 1986 by Acts 1986, c.”
Commonwealth v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 385 S.E.2d 865 (Va. 1989). · cites it 4× “Gypsum (June 27, 1986) that the plaintiff in that case invoked Code § 8.01-250.1 (as amended by Acts 1986, c.”
Kinder v. Coleman & Yates Coal Co., 974 F. Supp. 868 (W.D. Va. 1997). · cites it 4× “Finally, the plaintiffs assert that then-section 921(d) action is governed by Virgi *878 nia’s twenty year statute of limitations for the enforcement of judgments, Va.Code Ann. § 8.01-250.1 (Miehie 1992). In support of this argument, Kinder asserts that actions to enforce state…”
Graver v. Foster Wheeler Corp., 96 A.3d 383 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014). “” Va.Code Ann. § 8.01-250.1. If such an exception is eventually integrated into the Pennsylvania statute of repose, it should come from legislative action, and not an act of judicial fíat.”
Saunders v. Hk Porter Co., Inc., 643 F. Supp. 198 (E.D. Va. 1986). · cites it 3× “To the contrary, the opposite inference can be drawn from the language of § 8.01-250.1 of the Virginia Code which was enacted during the same legislative session as § 8.”
BurgerBusters, Inc. v. Ratley Constr. Co., 45 Va. Cir. 133 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 1998). “district court about the constitutionality of § 8.01-250.1. Commonwealth v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.”
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.