Virginia’s collateral source rule surfaces regularly in personal injury cases, and it works like this. Let’s say a driver who is responsible enough to carry her own medical insurance is injured in an accident she did not cause. Her injuries result in medical bills of $35,000, all of which are covered and paid for by her medical insurance. Later, she files a lawsuit against the other driver, who was negligent. In that suit she claims money for i) property damage to her car, ii) pain and suffering, and iii) the $35,000 in medical bills that her insurance had already covered.
This type of lawsuit is a “tort” claim (as opposed to a “contract” claim) because there is no contract between the two drivers. Even without a contract, however, the law imposes on each driver a duty to drive with reasonable care. A breach of that duty gives rise to a “tort” claim.
Virginia’s collateral source rule allows the injured driver to sue for (and collect) the $35,000 that she had already collected from her own insurance (the “collateral” source of money). Thus, the injured driver receives a “double recovery.” Double recoveries are usually not allowed, unless they arise under tort cases under Virginia’s collateral source rule. The reason to allow double recovery is so the negligent party does not receive a “credit” for money that the injured party receives from a collateral source. If anyone is going to receive a windfall, it should be the injured party. Another reason that the law allows the injured party to recover twice is to allow her to receive the “benefit of the bargain” that she made with her insurer. Until the Alstom Power case earlier this year (in which our litigation team represented Dominion), the Virginia Supreme Court had never decided whether the rule was also applicable in contract cases. The facts in the Alstom Power case presented this very question. Dominion and Alstom Power had a contract that required Alstom to work at Dominion power plants. The contract contained certain indemnification and insurance obligations.
An accident at a Dominion power plant resulted in injuries and fatalities. Wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits against Dominion ensued. These suits were settled, but only after Dominion incurred nearly $10 million in legal defense costs. (Dominion’s carrier paid a significant portion of these defense costs.)
Dominion then sued Alstom, claiming that Alstom breached its contract in two ways: (1) by failing to defend Dominion in the lawsuits; and (2) by obtaining “eroding” rather than “non-eroding” insurance. Dominion sought to recover from Alstom the same amount of money that Dominion had already received from its own insurance carrier. Alstom argued that Dominion could not recover both from Alstom and its insurance carrier. Dominion argued that the collateral source rule applies in contract cases, and that Dominion was entitled to the benefit of its bargain with the insurance carrier.
For the first time, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that Virginia’s collateral source rule could apply in certain breach of contract cases. The Court reasoned that “enforcing the parties’ expectation interests in the contracts they have entered” supported application of the rule to contract cases. Thus, Dominion is not barred from seeking damages from Alstom even though Dominion’s insurance company had already reimbursed it for the full amount of the damages.
The Alstom Power case has important implications for Virginia construction project owners and contractors. Owners may now be able to recover money from a general contractor even if the owner’s own insurance policy already paid the owner. For contractors, the lessons are two-fold: 1) Where prime contracts contain an indemnification clause, contractors should make sure that they have insurance that covers their indemnification obligations. 2) Many prime contracts require GC’s to obtain insurance that names the owner as an additional insured on a non-eroding basis – contractors should make sure that their coverage meets all requirements of the contract.
Contractual insurance and indemnification are tricky areas of law. This ruling highlights the importance of comparing your construction contracts with insurance policies – your professional insurance consultants, as well as your Hirschler Construction Team, can help manage these risks.
As president of Hirschler and head of the firm's litigation section, Courtney knows how to lead people and projects to a successful outcome.
Leveraging deep experience in the construction industry, Courtney advises public and ...
Liz combines enthusiasm and diligence to help her clients resolve complex disputes. Whether the dispute is a construction claim, a breach of contract, or a business tort, Liz brings focus and determination to every case. Liz has ...
Kelly’s practice focuses on construction law, commercial and product liability law, with an emphasis on dispute resolution—including mediation, arbitration, jury and bench trials in state and federal court. She routinely ...
Nate fully engages in each case and shoulders his clients’ needs. Communication, efficiency and careful judgment define his practice. In every case, he investigates competing claims to thoroughly understand their strengths ...
A professional engineer (P.E.) and an experienced lawyer, Webb began practicing at Hirschler Fleischer following four years of work as a consulting engineer. His multidisciplinary practice focuses on general business and ...
SubscribeSubscribe to Hirschler by Email
- Virginia's Collateral Source Rule and Its Effect on Owners and Contractors
- Virginia General Assembly: Construction Bills To Watch- Part 2
- Courtney Paulk and Kelly Bundy Discuss “Unpreventable Employee Misconduct” Defense in Article for Construction Executive
- Five Licensure Issues All Virginia Contractors Should Consider
- New Trump Executive Order Encourages Buy American Preferences in Infrastructure Projects
- Five Issues all Subcontractors and Suppliers on Federal Projects Should Consider
- Litigation. Arbitration. Mediation. What is the Difference and Who Should Care?
- Courtney Paulk to Participate in University of Richmond - Robins School of Business's C-Suite Conversations
- Virginia General Assembly Opens Session Today: Construction Bills To Watch
- Construction Year in Review: 2018 Trends and What To Expect in the Year Ahead
- Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
- Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation (DPOR)
- Government Contracts
- Dispute Resolution
- Mechanic's Liens
- Miller Act
- Workforce Development
- Virginia Employment Commission (VEC)
- Uniform Statewide Building Code
- Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission
- Change Orders
- Little Miller Act
- June 2019
- April 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016