I. Question Presented
Whether there exists any legislative or executive authority that mandates “matching” in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
II. Brief Answer
My research—through I trust—has been unable to unearth any statutory, regulatory, or any other legislative or executive authority on the subject of matching in Virginia. In the absence of such authority, the question of whether and to what extent matching is required is a fact intensive analysis that will depend heavily on what repairs are necessary to bring a damaged property back to its pre-loss value.
III. Discussion
You have asked for information on the subject of whether matching is required with respect to first party property claims in Virginia. Jurisdictions very greatly as to whether they require matching. For example, many jurisdictions require matching due to a statute or regulation, while in other jurisdiction matching has been required by means of a court’s interpretation of the language of an insured’s policy.
A. Virginia Has No Statute or Regulation That Requires Matching. As stated above, many jurisdictions have promulgated statutes or regulations that require an insurer to engage in matching. For instance, jurisdictions such as Alaska, California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Nebraska, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Utah, all have either statutes or regulations that affirmatively require matching to some extent. Jay Feinman, “Matching” In Replacement Cost Homeowners Insurance Policies (Rutgers
You would think that today’s society would not discriminate against someone based on their race, color, or national origin. With the changes in lifestyle, people continue to discriminate against those, but also someone’s sexual orientation. Even with laws and regulations, it continues in all parts of the country. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, more specifically Title VI, stated that you could not discriminate against anyone in programs and activities receiving federal
While both the people of the New England region and of the Chesapeake region descended from the same English origin, by 1700 both regions had traveled in two diverse directions. Since both of these groups were beset with issues that were unique to their regions and due to their exposure to different circumstances, each was forced to rethink and reconstruct their societies. As a result, the differences in the motivation, geography, and government in the New England and Chesapeake regions caused great divergence in the development of each.
On July 11, 1958 a couple of hours after midnight, Richard Loving a white man and Mildred Loving an African American woman were awakened to the presence of three officers in their bedroom. One of the three officers demanded from Richard to identify the woman next to him. Mildred, full of fear, told the officers that she was his wife, while Richard pointed to the marriage license on the wall. The couple was then charged and later found guilty in violation of the state's anti-miscegenation statute.
Today, the United States of America is a very racially and religiously diverse society. We saw the seeds of diversity being sown in the early days of colonization when the Chesapeake and New England colonies grew into distinctive societies. Even though both regions were primarily English, they had similarities as well as striking differences. The differentiating characteristics among the Chesapeake and New England colonies developed due to geography, religion, and motives for colonial expansion.
In a quick observation, it may be easy to observe that the Constitution of Virginia is much larger in length and detail than the United States Constitution. There are many differences between these two constitutions besides the authors or contributors being that James Madison contributed to both, however, he was not the complete author of the Constitution of Virginia (Constitutions of Virginia). Both Constitutions have the same idea in which it holds three separate branches of government, however, differences include the detail and content brought amongst the articles. Differences include, but are not limited to, division of the three branches, extra articles and policies, and the amendments. They
The Court of Appeals reversed and filed a petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court held that: "(1) apprehension by use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement; (2) deadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a
One of Mr. Patrick’s main reasons is that the British communities were stock piling militant forces that were meant for America.
In many ways, the opinion in this case represents a final step in the creation of
During the 1600s when England began colonizing in the New World, different colonies had their own concept of freedom backed by their beliefs and/ or motives for settling in America. Massachusetts and Virginia were settled for very different reasons therefore life in their settlements differed greatly. The political, economic, social and of course physical aspects of the colonies were not at all the same, yet they both resulted in their colonies prospering and successfully settling the land. The settlers of each colony had searched for a place to express two contrasting beliefs of what freedom meant to them. Massachusetts and Virginia are two prime examples of how freedom can mean something
During the constitutional convention, two plans were proposed to solve the problem of state representation in the government. The first of the two plans was the Virginia Plan, proposed by James Madison and the second being the New Jersey Plan, proposed by William Patterson. Both plans consisted of three branches of government, executive, legislative, and judiciary. however, the New Jersey Plan allowed for multiple executives. Additionally, the Virginia Plan had a bicameral legislature, both houses based on state's’ population or its wealth. The New Jersey Plan, on the other hand, has a unicameral legislature, with its single house giving a single vote to each state
The Commonwealth of Virginia v. Allen (609 S.E.2d 4, Va. 2005) was a fascinating case. The case focused on two expert witness testifying for the state and the other for the defendant, and if they acted and behaved ethically during the proceedings. Successive information will be addressed to prove the thought process behind my opinion given in this case. The APA code of ethics and specialty guidelines will be used to support my reasoning. Furthermore, they will serve as a baseline of boundaries within the profession to determine the expert witness’ influences to the case as well as their behavior within the profession.
The Virginia’s Statutes illustrate the declining Status of African American slaves was written because the state of Virginia wanted to state several rules and laws for their slaves. This document was written by the State of Virginia legislatures, being they were the ones who wrote it and established it. The main rule applied was that black people could not be with white people. Any white person married to a black or mulatto would be banished and will be known as a systematic plan formed to capture outlying slaves. Black men and women were known as slaves.
Virginia do all this, but it also had some many unforeseen impacts in the future, as well. For example, similar anti-miscegenation laws in about 15 other states were eventually overturned like Virginia’s marriage ban. In the case Goodridge v. Department of Public Health in the November of 2003, a similar case to Loving v. Virginia, the restrictions on marriage were argued yet again. However, instead of interracial marriage being the problem, it was same-sex partners who were unable to wed. Like the case for the Lovings, the Supreme Court eventually ruled against the ban on members of the LGBTQ community marrying, as it was also deemed
This document analyzes the Virginia resolution and Kentucky resolution and what they resolved respectively on their own as resolutions.
Facts: In Lexington, Kentucky, police officers followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment building where he went. When they arrived outside of the door to the apartment where the suspect was they reportedly could smell marajuana. The police then knocked and shouted they they were there and in return they could hear what sounded like people destroying the evidence and running around. The police then knocked down the door and saw the respondent as well as drugs laying out without having to look anywhere. later the police found more drugs and paraphernalia doing a more in-depth search. “The Circuit Court denied respondent’s motion to suppress the evidence, holding that exigent