Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-262.1 (2026)

Place for bringing action under a contract related to construction

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

A. Where a party whose principal place of business is in the Commonwealth enters into a contract on or after July 1, 1997, to design, manage construction of, construct, alter, repair, maintain, move, demolish, or excavate, or supply goods, equipment, or materials for the construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, movement, demolition, or excavation of a building, structure, appurtenance, road, bridge, or tunnel which is physically located in the Commonwealth, any cause of action arising under such contract may be brought in the jurisdiction where the construction project is located, or such other jurisdiction where the venue is proper under the provisions of this chapter. Any provision in the contract mandating that such action be brought in a location outside the Commonwealth shall be unenforceable.

B. The forum for any arbitration proceedings required in such a contract entered into on or after July 1, 1991, shall be in this Commonwealth. If the contract provides for arbitration proceedings outside the Commonwealth, such provision is unenforceable and arbitration proceedings shall be in the county or city where the work is to be performed, unless the parties agree to conduct the proceedings elsewhere within the Commonwealth. The enforceability of the remaining provisions of the arbitration agreement and the method of selecting a forum for the conduct of the arbitration proceedings are as provided in this Code, the Federal Arbitration Act, and any applicable rules of arbitration.

1991, c. 489; 1997, c. 424; 1999, c. 130.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2022 · leading case: M.C. Constr. Corp. v. Gray Co., 17 F. Supp. 2d 541 (W.D. Va. 1998).
M.C. Constr. Corp. v. Gray Co., 17 F. Supp. 2d 541 (W.D. Va. 1998). · cites it 19× “For the reasons stated herein, I am of the opinion that, (1) the plaintiff’s motion should be DENIED, (2) the defendant’s motion for summary judgment should be GRANTED as to the defendant’s counterclaim for a declaratory judgment that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts Va.Code…”
in Re MVP Terminalling, LLC (Tex. App. 2022). “§ 66-11-208 (a); Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-262.1 ; Wis. Stat. Ann.”
Coggins v. S. Ry. Co., 10 Va. Cir. 79 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 1987). “Under newer statute relating to venue it is quite clear that the venue in Virginia now for personal injury cases under § 8.01-262.1., .2, and .3, are all proper "permissible venues for this cause of action.”
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.