Tort Law

This page within Virginia Tort Case Law is a compilation of cases reported by the Virginia Supreme Court and summarized by Brien Roche dealing with the topic of Insurance Homeowners and the related topic of premises liability.  For more information about homeowner’s insurance see the pages on Wikipedia.

Insurance Homeowners-Cases

2012 TravCo Insurance Company v. Ward, 284 Va. 547, 736 S.E.2d 321.
All risk homeowners’ policy did not cover damage resulting from defective drywall manufactured in China which emitted various compounds and caused health issues. This claim is excluded from coverage because the damage is a loss caused by latent defect, faulty, inadequate or defective materials, rust or other corrosion, or pollutants as defined in the policy.

1993 Floyd v. Northern Neck Ins. Co., 245 Va. 153, 427 S.E.2d 193.
Trial court erred in finding lack of coverage where child was injured in lawn mower accident while being cared for by homeowner. Activity in question is not ordinarily associated with child care functions, and when viewed against background of entire policy exclusion it is deemed activity that was incident to nonbusiness pursuits, and therefore coverage exists. Parties in case were engaged in home day care business, but because child was injured as result of activity not normally associated with day care, i.e., mowing lawn, exclusion was found not to apply.

1991 Whitmer v. Graphic Arts Mut. Ins., 242 Va. 349, 410 S.E.2d 642.
Fire loss under homeowner’s policy. Court concludes that because insured has not replaced damaged property, he cannot recover its replacement value, but only its actual cash value.

1987 Virginia Mut. Ins. v. Hagy, 232 Va. 472, 352 S.E.2d 316.
Issue in this case was whether insured was engaged in business pursuit for purposes of coverage under homeowners policy. Providing day care was held to be business pursuit.

1986 Johnson v. INA, 232 Va. 340, 350 S.E.2d 616.
Intentional injury exclusion in homeowners policy precludes coverage for mentally ill insured who shot plaintiff. Language in insurance homeowners policy purporting to exclude coverage will be construed most strongly against insurance company.

1983 Walker v. Vanderpool, 225 Va. 266, 302 S.E.2d 669.
Insurance homeowners.Plaintiff contracted with contractor for installation of furnace. Contract provided “owner to carry fire, tornado and other necessary insurance.” Court interpreted that to mean that homeowner was to take out policy of insurance covering liability of both homeowner and contractor. Homeowner failed to do so. Court ruled that homeowner’s failure to take out that policy barred his claim against contractor for damages to his home arising from negligent installation of furnace.