Gill v. Rollins Protective Services Co.

Fourth Circuit

Gill v. Rollins Protective Services Co.

788 F.2d 1042, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 37434

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 30, 1986

DocketNos. 84-1679, 84-1680

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 788 F.2d 1042 (Gill v. Rollins Protective Services Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gill v. Rollins Protective Services Co., 788 F.2d 1042, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 37434 (4th Cir. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Upon consideration of the appellee’s petition for rehearing,

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the original published opinion, 773 F.2d 592, is hereby amended by deleting the first two sentences in the first full paragraph in the second column on page 598 and inserting in lieu thereof two new sentences reading as follows:

In this case, USAA comes clearly within the requirements for an action for actual damages under § 59.1-204 because it allegedly has “suffer[ed] loss as the result of [Rollins’] violation of Section 59.1-200.” Both Virginia common and statutory law provide for an insurance company’s right to subrogation where, as here, the insured’s loss allegedly was caused by a third party’s negligent or tortious conduct.

Entered at the direction of Circuit Judge ERVIN for a panel consisting of Circuit Judge MURNAGHAN and Circuit Judge ERVIN. Circuit Judge SNEEDEN was the third panel member, and he has taken no part in the consideration of the petition for rehearing.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

Upon consideration of the appellee’s petition for rehearing,

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the original published opinion, 773 F.2d 592, is hereby amended by deleting the first two sentences in the first full paragraph in the second column on page 598 and inserting in lieu thereof two new sentences reading as follows:

In this case, USAA comes clearly within the requirements for an action for actual damages under § 59.1-204 because it allegedly has “suffer[ed] loss as the result of [Rollins’] violation of Section 59.1-200.” Both Virginia common and statutory law provide for an insurance company’s right to subrogation where, as here, the insured’s loss allegedly was caused by a third party’s negligent or tortious conduct.

Entered at the direction of Circuit Judge ERVIN for a panel consisting of Circuit Judge MURNAGHAN and Circuit Judge ERVIN. Circuit Judge SNEEDEN was the third panel member, and he has taken no part in the consideration of the petition for rehearing.

Michael A. Ward Kimberly Ward v. Allied Van Lines, Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation Academy, Incorporated, D/B/A Academy Moving & Storage, D/B/A Academy/allied Moving & Storage, a California Corporation J.D. Carton & Son, Incorporated, a New Jersey Corporation Samuel Smith, and Norfolk Southern Railway Company, Michael A. Ward Kimberly Ward v. Allied Van Lines, Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation Academy, Incorporated, D/B/A Academy Moving & Storage, D/B/A Academy/allied Moving & Storage, a California Corporation J.D. Carton & Son, Incorporated, a New Jersey Corporation Samuel Smith, and Norfolk Southern Railway Company

231 F.3d 135 (Fourth Circuit, 2000)

Pettengill v. United States

867 F. Supp. 380 (E.D. Virginia, 1994)

Voelker v. Delmarva Power & Light Co.

933 F.2d 1002 (Third Circuit, 1991)

Liggett Group, Inc. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.

748 F. Supp. 344 (M.D. North Carolina, 1990)

James E. Chumbley Thomas Lenchek Michael Corke Jo Yount Adrian De Bee v. Rockland Industries, Inc. v. Warm Window, Inc., Third-Party James E. Chumbley Thomas Lenchek Michael Corke Jo Yount Adrian De Bee v. Rockland Industries, Inc. v. Warm Window, Inc., Third-Party

829 F.2d 1119 (Third Circuit, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

788 F.2d 1042, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 37434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gill-v-rollins-protective-services-co-ca4-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack