BMHJ Blog: Legal Information, Resources, & News: Insurance Coverage

Medicare Lien: Section 111 – Another Delay in Implementation?

December 21st, 2010
By: Bancroft McGavin Horvath & Judkins

Another delay? Yes. There is now a third delay of Section 111 implementation. Why? Probably because Medicare agents have been flooded with information which is required by Section 111. This has resulted in significant delays. Thus, there has been yet another postponement. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and Medicare Secondary Payer Recovery Contractor (MSPRC) has set forth a one year delay in implementation on Section 111 reporting requirements for claims involving liability insurance, retroactive to October 1, 2010 through October 1, 2011.

Read more

The 2010 Amendment to the Virginia UM/UIM Statute

May 18th, 2010
By: Bancroft McGavin Horvath & Judkins

The Virginia General Assembly added a new section to the Virginia UM/UIM statute, Va. Code Section 38.2-2206 during its most recent session which was designed to create a mechanism to allow liability carriers to shift the costs of the defense to the UIM carrier if certain criteria is met. First, the liability insurer must make an “irrevocable” offer in writing to pay its bodily injury or property damage limits; second, written notice must be given to the UIM carrier; third, to be effective, the UIM carrier who gets the notice must have been served in accordance with the statute; fourth, 60 days after the written notice is provided to the UIM carrier, the liability insurer is relieved of defense costs incurred thereafter, which includes expenses and “reasonable and necessary” attorney’s fees; fifth, the UIM carrier must reimburse the liability insurer for costs to defend to the date the UIM carrier offers its limits, or presumably settles. The amended statute requires that the liability carrier retains the duty to defend. It also states that in the event of either a jury verdict returned in an amount equal to or less than the total liability coverage available for payment or a dispositive ruling dismissing plaintiff’s complaint the new subsection of the statute does not apply. So, how will this new statute impact the insurance industry?

Read more

Intentional Acts Do Not Trigger Duty to Provide Coverage Even when Bare Allegations of Negligence Are Pled

Stephen A. Horvath, Esquire
February 2nd, 2010
By: Stephen A. Horvath, Esquire

Intentional Acts Do Not Trigger Insurance Coverage Even when There Is a Bare Allegation of Negligence

Insurance companies are frequently confronted with the question as to whether or not they have a duty to defend a lawsuit when there are allegations of intentional acts by their insured and an insertion of a bare negligence claim. Recently, this firm was successful in obtaining a ruling from Judge Henry Hudson in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in such a case. Judge Hudson held that by merely inserting the word ”negligently” prior to a description of intentional acts, insurance coverage is not triggered.

Read more

Defense Verdicts in Rear End Accidents in General District Court


Melissa H. Katz, Esquire
January 15th, 2010
By: Dana L. Tubb, Esquire and Melissa H. Katz, Esquire

After the General Assembly repealed the removal statute, Va. Code Section 16.1-92 in 2007, there was concern by insurers whether the cost to litigate cases in general district court was worthwhile since defense verdicts often seemed unattainable, especially in rear end motor vehicle accidents. In reality, it is very cost effective to try cases in general district court since discovery is limited under Virginia law and the case can usually be tried within 3 to 6 months from the return date.

Read more

Disclaimer

This blog and the information provided has been prepared by Bancroft, McGavin, Horvath & Judkins, P.C. (“BMHJ”) for information purposes only and is not intended nor to be construed as legal advice. This blog may contain the opinions of the members and associates of this firm on various legal issues and is not legal advice. Read More