Virginia Legislative Update

The following is a short summary of new Virginia legislation going into effect July 1, 2025 that may be of particular interest to personal injury claimants and their attorneys. As always, the exact language of these laws must be examined to determine the details of the law.

Va. Code § 8.01-42.6: This is a wholly new statute that expands the vicarious liability of employers for the tortious conduct of an employee in certain kinds of cases. The statute has the effect of undoing, at least in a limited context, the narrowing of Virginia’s common law principles governing vicarious liability which occurred in a series of recent decisions by the Supreme Court of Virginia starting with Parker v. Carilion Clinic, 296 Va. 319, 819 S.E.2d 809 (2018). The statute provides that in an action for personal injury or death by wrongful act brought by a vulnerable victim (as defined in the statute) or the personal representative of a deceased vulnerable victim against an employee, a finding that the employee’s employer is vicariously liable for such employee’s conduct shall be based on several factors, including the likelihood of the employee coming into contact with such vulnerable victim and the employer’s failure to exercise reasonable care over the
employee.

The statutory definition of a “vulnerable victim” includes patients of health care providers, persons under a disability, residents of assisted living facilities, passengers of common carriers (with certain exceptions), passengers of nonemergency medical transportation carriers, and business invitees of an esthetics spa or a business offering massage therapy. This new statute applies only to causes of action that accrue on or after July 1, 2025. The statute makes clear that its provisions are “[i]n addition to any other available grounds for the determination of the course and scope of employment.” Notably, the statute applies to “an action for personal injury or death by wrongful act brought . . . against an employee” (emphasis added) which meets the other statutory requirements. In view of this language, Plaintiffs and their attorneys should perhaps be careful to include both the employer and the employee as defendants (and not to nonsuit the individual employee at any time) rather than pursuing only the employer on a vicarious liability claim.

Va. Code § 8.01-223.2: This statute was amended to expand immunity for statements “made at or in connection with any formal review or hearing authorized by law, including a written or oral statement made pursuant to a report or complaint,” beyond just public hearings before local governing bodies, which was the case under prior law. However, this immunity does not apply to statements that the person knew or should have known were false or made with reckless disregard for their truthfulness.

Va. Code § 46.2-373: This statute was amended to increase the minimum property damage amount that triggers mandatory police collision reports to the DMV from $1,500 to $5,000. Thus, automobile collisions with property damage more than $1,500 but less than $5,000 will no longer automatically generate official written collision reports for DMV records. This change affects evidence availability for lower-value injury claims that often accompany moderate property damage accidents. Essentially, plaintiffs in smaller personal injury cases may have less official documentation to support their claims if property damage falls below the new $5,000 threshold.

Va. Code § 8.01-229(K): This statute was amended to expressly extend the tolling of the statute of limitations for wrongful death actions while related criminal cases are ongoing. This change recognizes that families may wait for criminal proceedings to conclude before pursuing civil wrongful death claims and the passage of time may cause them to lose their right to sue. The amendment ensures that lengthy criminal prosecutions do not inadvertently bar families from seeking civil damages in a wrongful death action. As a practical matter, the amendment allows families to focus on criminal justice proceedings first without the pressure of simultaneously filing civil suits to preserve their legal rights. This provision applies only to causes of action that accrue on or after July 1, 2025.

Va. Code § 16.1-79 and Va. Code § 16.1-81: These statutes were amended to extend the date by which a person served with a warrant or motion for judgment in a civil action in general district court may be required to appear. Under the new law, a person now has “90 days from the date of service” to appear rather than the previous timeline of “60 days from the date of service.”

Va. Code §§ 8.01-20.1, 8.01-50.1, 16.1-83.1: Each of these statutes were amended to clarify and modify the expert certification provisions applicable to medical malpractice claims. The amendments provide that that the plaintiff is automatically required “[w]ithin 21 days of an answer being filed” to certify to the defendant that s/he has complied with the expert certification requirement. Previously, the plaintiff was required to certify that the expert certification requirement had been met only if the defendant made a written request to the plaintiff. The amendments provide that the expert certification must be obtained by the time the plaintiff first requests service of process upon the defendant or requests the defendant to accept service of process. The amendments set forth the exact language of the certifying expert opinion that must be obtained and also provide that “[n]o further statement or opinion from the expert witness shall be required” and that the plaintiff may have separate certifications for standard of care and causation. The amendments state that “[e]ach defendant who is the subject of an expert witness’s certification shall be identified in the certification.” The amendments further provide that the plaintiff’s certification that the expert witness certification requirements had been satisfied must include “a statement that reads: This is to certify that the plaintiff has complied with” the pertinent statute requiring expert certification. The amendments should be carefully examined and complied with because under both the previous statutes and the amended statutes a failure to comply with the expert certification requirements results in the imposition of sanctions which may include dismissal of the case with prejudice.

Chapter 498, HB 2627: This Act directs the Secretary of Transportation to create a working group to develop draft legislation governing the regulation of autonomous driving systems and to report its findings to the General Assembly by November 1, 2026. This group will include representatives from the Department of Transportation, the Department of State Police, and the Department of Motor Vehicles, along with selected members of the House of Delegates and the Senate. By examining the operational, technical and legal issues, this initiative aims to ensure legal preparedness regarding the governance of autonomous driving systems in Virginia.

Va. Code § 38.2-2131: This is a new statute that prohibits the assignment or transfer of duties, rights, or benefits under a fire insurance policy (or a fire insurance policy combined with other coverages) without the written consent of the insurer. Specifically, the bill adds a new section to the Virginia Code that makes any such assignment or transfer void and unenforceable. However, the bill does allow some exceptions. It still permits insureds to authorize payments to service providers for covered losses and to assign rights to recover tort damages exceeding the insured’s liability coverage. The goal of the new law appears to be preventing unauthorized transfers of insurance claims and protecting insurers’ ability to control and manage their policy obligations.

Va. Code § 8.01-420.9: This is a new statute which allows a nonparty in a civil proceeding to move to quash or modify a subpoena duces tecum seeking that nonparty’s financial records or, if the nonparty is an attorney, records subject to attorney–client privilege. It also bars financial institutions and certain other businesses from conditioning compliance with a subpoena on payment of fees for producing those records. The bill directs the Supreme Court of Virginia to revise its rules accordingly. Finally, the bill tasks the Boyd Graves Conference with studying whether other nonparties should have standing to quash subpoenas for other types of records and requires a report to the Chair of the Courts of Justice Committee by November 1, 2025.

Va. Code § 46.2-1094: This statute was amended to require all adult persons occupying any seat in a motor vehicle equipped with safety belts to wear those belts while the vehicle is in motion on a public highway. Previously, only front-seat adult passengers were required to buckle up. Under both the previous statute and the revised statute all passengers under the age of 18 years have already been and remain subject to the safety device requirements of Virginia Code § 46.2-1095. The revised statute makes no change in the numerous existing exceptions to and other provisions of Virginia Code § 46.2-1094 (a violation shall not constitute negligence, be considered in mitigation of damages, be admissible in evidence, or be the subject of comment by counsel in any action for recovery of damages arising out of the operation, ownership, or maintenance of a motor vehicle; nothing in the statute shall change any existing law, rule, or procedure pertaining to any civil action; law-enforcement officers cannot stop a motor vehicle for violation of the statute; no evidence discovered or obtained as a result of a stop in violation of the statute shall be admissible in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding).

¹ The author wishes to thank Venus Amadi for her valuable assistance on this article. Ms. Amadi is serving as a law clerk at Marks & Harrison this summer and she anticipates graduating from William and Mary Law School in May of 2026.

The entire Marks & Harrison Summer 2025 Points of Law newsletter is available for download