Wilson v. Fireman's Fund Ins.

Roanoke County Circuit Court

Wilson v. Fireman's Fund Ins.

41 Va. Cir. 248, 1997 Va. Cir. LEXIS 3

CourtRoanoke County Circuit Court

DecidedJanuary 2, 1997

DocketCase No. CL93-973

StatusPublished

This text of 41 Va. Cir. 248 (Wilson v. Fireman's Fund Ins.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Roanoke County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wilson v. Fireman's Fund Ins., 41 Va. Cir. 248, 1997 Va. Cir. LEXIS 3 (Va. Super. Ct. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

By Judge Robert P. Doherty, Jr.

The Defendant’s demurrer is based in part on a technical distinction he sees between the concept of workers’ compensation liens, as opposed to the concept of an employer’s rights of subrogation. I think that these concepts are one and the same. The Code of Virginia refers to it both ways. Section 65.2-313 calls it an employer’s compensation lien, while § 65.2-309 calls it the employer’s subrogation right to the employee’s rights against third parties. The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals make reference to this right of subrogation as a lien in the following cases: Tomlin v. Vance, 22 Va. App. 448 (1996); Bohle v. Henry County Sch. Bd., 246 Va. 30 (1993); Henrico School Board v. Bohle, 14 Va. App. 801 (1992); Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Bower, 243 Va. 183 (1992); Ball v. C.D.W. Inters., Inc., 13 Va. App. 470 (1992); and ABC Trucking, Inc. v. Griffin, 5 Va. App. 542 (1988).

Based on the allegations in the Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment, a contract was entered into between the parties. The Defendant breached that contract and caused damages to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is asking to be compensated. The pleading is sufficient in both form and substance. The demurrer is overruled.

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

By Judge Robert P. Doherty, Jr.

The Defendant’s demurrer is based in part on a technical distinction he sees between the concept of workers’ compensation liens, as opposed to the concept of an employer’s rights of subrogation. I think that these concepts are one and the same. The Code of Virginia refers to it both ways. Section 65.2-313 calls it an employer’s compensation lien, while § 65.2-309 calls it the employer’s subrogation right to the employee’s rights against third parties. The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals make reference to this right of subrogation as a lien in the following cases: Tomlin v. Vance, 22 Va. App. 448 (1996); Bohle v. Henry County Sch. Bd., 246 Va. 30 (1993); Henrico School Board v. Bohle, 14 Va. App. 801 (1992); Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Bower, 243 Va. 183 (1992); Ball v. C.D.W. Inters., Inc., 13 Va. App. 470 (1992); and ABC Trucking, Inc. v. Griffin, 5 Va. App. 542 (1988).

Based on the allegations in the Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment, a contract was entered into between the parties. The Defendant breached that contract and caused damages to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is asking to be compensated. The pleading is sufficient in both form and substance. The demurrer is overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 Va. Cir. 248, 1997 Va. Cir. LEXIS 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-firemans-fund-ins-vaccroanokecty-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack