Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bartolomucci v. Federal Insurance Co.

Supreme Court of Virginia

April 16, 2015

CHRISTOPHER BARTOLOMUCCI
v.
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. VU VO
v.
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL

Page 452

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LOUDOUN COUNTY. Thomas D. Horne, Judge.

Tina L. Snee (Snee & Associates, on briefs), for appellant.

John D. McGavin (Anna G. Gillespie; Bancroft, McGavin, Horvath & Judkins, on brief), for appellees.

Michael R. Strong (Strong Law Firm, on briefs), for appellant.

John D. McGavin (Anna G. Gillespie; Bancroft, McGavin, Horvath & Judkins, on brief), for appellees.

OPINION

Page 453

LEROY F. MILLETTE, JR., JUSTICE

In these appeals we consider the scope and application of an insurance policy that provides coverage for a law firm partner's vehicle only when that vehicle is " used in" a law firm's business or personal affairs.

I. Facts And Proceedings

Vu Vo and Christopher Bartolomucci were involved in a vehicle collision. Based on his injuries, Vo filed a lawsuit against Bartolomucci seeking $1,000,000 in damages. The vehicle which Bartolomucci was driving was insured under an Allstate Insurance Company insurance policy with a $100,000 liability limit (the " Allstate Policy" ). Vo is unwilling to settle his suit within the Allstate Policy's limit.

Because his potential liability exceeds the Allstate Policy's limit, Bartolomucci filed a declaratory judgment action in the Circuit Court of Loudoun County. Bartolomucci sought to establish that his vehicle fell within the scope of Federal Insurance Company's insurance policy issued to Bartolomucci's law firm, Hogan Lovells US, LLC (the " Federal Policy" ).[1] During the course of these proceedings, the circuit court ruled on the demurrer to the amended complaint filed by Federal Insurance and Hogan Lovells. The circuit court sustained that demurrer in part, overruled it in part, and allowed Bartolomucci's suit to continue on the theory that he was covered by the Federal Policy.

The case went to trial. The matter was submitted to the jury on a special interrogatory asking the question whether Bartolomucci was using his vehicle in Hogan Lovells's business or personal affairs at the time of the collision. The jury responded " yes." However, the circuit court then granted Federal Insurance's and Hogan Lovells's motion to strike, and set aside the jury's finding as not being supported by the evidence. The court entered final judgment in favor of Federal Insurance and held that

Page 454

the Federal Policy did not cover Bartolomucci's use of the vehicle at the time of the collision.

Bartolomucci and Vo timely filed separate petitions for appeal with this Court, and we granted all six assignments of error. These assignments require us to address four issues:

1. Whether the Federal Policy automatically provided excess liability coverage unrestricted by any other requirements of the policy?
2. Whether the Federal Policy provided coverage because Bartolomucci is a " Named Insured" ?
3. Whether the Federal Policy provided coverage because it is ambiguous?
4. Whether the Federal Policy provided coverage because Bartolomucci's use of the vehicle fell ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.