Significant Cases

  • Blazer v. About Women, OBGYN, PC, 2019 Va. Unpub. LEXIS 9, 2019 WL 1417389 (Mar. 28, 2019) (Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the Circuit Court’s award of sanctions under Virginia’s version of federal Rule 11 where movant failed to establish a prima facie case of sanctionable conduct, and where court erred in holding as a matter of law that the practice of gynecology could not be a “related” field to obstetrics).

  • Minn. Lawyers Mut., Ins. Co. v. Protostorm, LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81888 (E.D. Va. June 22, 2016) (granting insurer summary judgment in $5 million dispute over endorsement limiting coverage for acts or omissions occurring before a specified date).

  • Builders Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wallace, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129534 (E.D. Va. Aug. 20, 2012) (granting default judgment against insured and declaring that insurer had no duty to defend).

  • Minnesota Lawyers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Antonelli, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6504 (Mar. 29, 2012) (finding no duty to defend based on business enterprise exclusion).

  • Smith v. Purnell, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141738 (E.D. Va. Dec. 9, 2011), aff'd, 474 Fed. Appx. 464 (4th Cir. Aug. 20, 2012) (dismissing, on agency grounds, a claim that an attorney interfered with his client’s contract with a second attorney).

  • Builders Mut. Ins. Co. v. Futura Group, L.L.C., 779 F. Supp. 2d 529 (E.D. Va. 2011) (in a declaratory judgment suit, the Nautilus factors counseled against granting the homeowners' motion to stay).

  • Builders Mut. Ins. Co. v. Parallel Design & Dev. LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142870 (E.D. Va. Oct. 5, 2010) (insurer's motion for protective order granted and discovery barred on grounds that only facts relevant to a determination of an insurer's duty to defend under Virginia's "eight corners" rule were the contents of the insurance policy and the allegations of the underlying complaint).

  • Minnesota Lawyers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Antonelli, 355 Fed. Appx. 698 (4th Cir. Dec. 9, 2009) (abuse of discretion not to hear action to determine defense duties in suit arising out of $600 million Blackberry settlement).

  • Laios v. Wasylik, 564 F. Supp. 2d 538 (E.D.Va. 2008) (three-year statute of limitations for unwritten contract applied to legal malpractice claim).

  • Lehman Bros. Bank, FSB v. Frank T. Yoder Mortg., 415 F. Supp. 2d 636 (E.D.Va. 2006) (determining citizenship of a federal savings bank for diversity purposes).

  • Shipman v. Kruck, 593 S.E.2d 319 (Va. 2004) (determining the statute of limitations in legal malpractice cases).

  • District of Columbia v. United Jewish Appeal Fed., 672 A.2d 1075 (D.C. 1996) (affirming trial court decision that District of Columbia violated owner's due process rights in foreclosing against property without notice).

*The material contained on this site provides general coverage of the subject areas addressed and are presented for informational purposes only with the understanding that the laws governing the areas of law addressed are always changing. The information is not legal advice and may not be suitable in a particular situation.