Va. Code » Title 8.01. Civil Remedies and Procedure » Chapter 21. Arbitration and Award » Article 1. General Provisions
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-581 (2026)

Fiduciary may submit to arbitration

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any personal representative of a decedent, fiduciary of a person under a disability, or other fiduciary may submit to arbitration any suit or matter of controversy touching the estate or property of such decedent, or person under a disability or in respect to which he is trustee. And any submission so made in good faith, and the award made thereupon, shall be binding and entered as the judgment of a court, if so required by the agreement, in the same manner as other submissions and awards. No such fiduciary shall be responsible for any loss sustained by an award adverse to the interests of the person under a disability or beneficiary under any such trust, unless it was caused by his fault or neglect.

Code 1950, § 8-507; 1977, c. 617.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2021 · leading case: Morrison v. Bestler, 387 S.E.2d 753 (Va. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Morrison v. Bestler, 387 S.E.2d 753 (Va. 1990). · cites it 4× “Although this Court ruled that Code § 8.01-581 does not apply to contract claims, we went on to hold that "the trial court did not err in dismissing the second count.”
Linhart v. Lawson, 540 S.E.2d 875 (Va. 2001). · cites it 2× “Code § 8.01-581 abrogated the common law principle that the liabilities of agent and principal are coterminous.”
Khadim v. Lab'y Corp. of Am., 838 F. Supp. 2d 448 (W.D. Va. 2011). · cites it 2× “In its Answer, LabCorp asserted, as its eighth affirmative defense, that *461 “LabCorp is a ‘health care provider,’ and, as such, is entitled to the protection of the Virginia Medical Malpractive Act, Va.Code Ann. § 8.01-581, et seq.” Plaintiffs moved for partial summary…”
Ives v. Redford, 252 S.E.2d 315 (Va. 1979). · cites it 2× “202; Code § 8-923 (now Code § 8.01-581. 12:1). Because her cause of action arose prior to the enactment of this statute, the present plaintiff agrees that the statute is not applicable here.”
Mejia-Arevalo v. Inova Health Care Servs., 77 Va. Cir. 43 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2008). · cites it 2× “, Annual Essay of Virginia Law: Discovery Divide: Virginia Code Section 8.01-581’s Quality Assurance Privilege and Its Protection of Healthcare Provider Policies and Incident Reports, 39 U.”
Berger v. Pulte Home Corp., 55 Va. Cir. 36 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “Finally, the Court views the question of the public interest in this case to be both a question of economy in the use of judicial resources and the concomitant recognition that public policy as enumerated in Virginia Code §§ 8.01-581, etseq., favors arbitration.”
Jones v. Perez, 81 Va. Cir. 52 (Chesapeake Cir. Ct. 2010). · cites it 4× “, Discovery Divide: Virginia Code Section 8.01-581 ’s Quality Assurance Privilege and Its Protection of Healthcare Provider Policies and Incident Reports, 39 U.”
Atkinson v. Kaizer Found. Health Plan of the Mid-Atl. States, Inc., 23 Va. Cir. 532 (Va. Cir. Ct. 1988). · cites it 3× “Martha Jefferson Hospital (Law No. 2757, City of Charlottesville, September 29, 1983); Carlson v.”
J.S. v. Winchester Pediatric Clinic, P.C., No. 5:19-cv-00097 (W.D. Va. Mar. 4, 2021). · cites it 3× “In this respect, the Maryland statute differs markedly from Va. Code § 8.01-581- 15. As the Virginia Supreme Court held in Etheridge, The limitation on medical malpractice recoveries contained in Code § 8.”
Williams v. Kendall, 10 Va. Cir. 84 (Winchester Cir. Ct. 1987). “First, may an action be asserted against a doctor for breach of an implied contract of care? Clearly no, in view of the enactment of the Virginia Medical Malpractice Act, §§ 8.01-581, et seq. If there ever was such a cause of action upon an implied contract, this statute has…”
Austin v. Tricord Homes, Inc., 55 Va. Cir. 198 (Spotsylvania Cir. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “Under that Act, a written agreement to subject a claim, controversy, or dispute to binding arbitration is valid and enforceable “except upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”
Augusta Lumber Co. v. Broad Run Holdings, L.L.C., 71 Va. Cir. 326 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2006). · cites it 2× “Defendants counter that the Virginia Uniform Arbitration Act (“VUAA”), Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-581 , et seq. (2006), and Virginia case law apply because the timber is located in Virginia, the TSA was concluded in Virginia, and the parties are Virginia residents.”
Show all 14 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.