Case Title: Uniwest Construction v. Amtech Elevator Services (Order)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: virginia

Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Date: 2011-04-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
VIRGINIA: 
 
 
In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court 
Building in the City of Richmond, on Thursday, the 21st day of 
April, 2011. 
 
 
Uniwest Construction, Inc., et al.  
 
 
Appellants, 
 
   against 
Record No. 091495 
 
 
 
Circuit Court No. CL-2008-5909 
 
Amtech Elevator Services, Inc., 
n/k/a ABM Amtech, Inc., et al. 
 
 
 
Appellees. 
 
 
Amtech Elevator Services, Inc., 
n/k/a ABM Amtech, Inc., et al. 
 
 
 
Appellants. 
 
   against 
Record No. 091496 
 
 
 
Circuit Court No. CL-2008-5909 
 
Uniwest Construction, Inc., et al.  
 
 
Appellees. 
 
 
Federal Insurance Company 
 
 
 
 
Appellant, 
 
   against 
Record No. 091521 
 
 
 
Circuit Court No. CL-2008-5909 
 
Amtech Elevator Services, Inc., 
n/k/a ABM Amtech, Inc., et al. 
 
 
 
Appellees. 
 
 
Upon a Petition for Rehearing 
 
By unanimous opinion issued September 16, 2010, this Court 
affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the Circuit 
Court of Fairfax County against Amtech Elevator Services, Inc., 
n/k/a ABM Amtech, Inc. (“Amtech”), ABM Industries, Inc., and AIU 
Insurance Company (“AIU”) and remanded the case for further 
proceedings.  280 Va. 428, 446, 699 S.E.2d 223, 232 (2010).  
Thereafter, Uniwest Construction, Inc. (“Uniwest”), and Federal 
2 
Insurance Company filed petitions for rehearing requesting the 
Court to consider “whether the underlying claims by Bruce and 
Stinson gave rise to ‘liability arising out of operations conducted 
by [Amtech] or on [Amtech’s] behalf’ ” and to “request that the 
Court make clear that a finding of ‘relative liability’ is not 
required with respect to E-7; instead, the finding on remand with 
respect to E-7 should be whether Uniwest’s ‘liability [arose] out 
of operations conducted by [Amtech] or on [Amtech’s] behalf.’ ”  
(Alterations in original.)  By order entered January 18, 2011, the 
Court granted the petitions. 
The questions presented by the petitions for rehearing were 
not reached by the circuit court because it erroneously determined 
that Uniwest was not an insured under Subdivision E-7 of Amtech’s 
commercial umbrella insurance policy from AIU.1  Because the circuit 
court did not decide the scope or extent of liability under 
Subdivision E-7, the Court remands the matter “for consideration of 
the legal and factual efficacy” of the questions presented in the 
petitions for rehearing.2  Burwell's Bay Improvement Ass'n v. Scott, 
277 Va. 325, 332, 672 S.E.2d 847, 851 (2009) (remanding for 
consideration of preserved questions preempted by the circuit 
court’s erroneous holding on a threshold question). 
                                                 
1 Uniwest is an insured under both Subdivision E-4 and 
Subdivision E-7 of the policy.  280 Va. at 445, 699 S.E.2d at 232. 
2 The Court expresses no opinion as to whether relative 
liability is relevant to Subdivision E-7. 
3 
                                                
The Court withdraws Part II(D) of its opinion of September 16, 
2010.  On remand the circuit court shall determine the extent of 
Amtech’s liability to Uniwest for its failure to defend and 
indemnify Uniwest.3  The court also shall determine whether and to 
what extent AIU is liable under Subdivision E-4 and Subdivision E-
7, consistent with this Court’s opinion of September 16, 2010, as 
amended, and this order.  If the court determines that Uniwest and 
its insurers are entitled to an award of damages, consideration of 
such damages shall include both Uniwest’s settlement with Bruce and 
Stinson and the cost of Uniwest’s defense in the lawsuit leading to 
that settlement for which Amtech and AIU are liable, to the extent 
such costs have not yet been paid by Amtech and its insurers. 
 
This order shall be published in the Virginia Reports and 
shall be certified to the said circuit court. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A Copy,   
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Teste: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Patricia L. Harrington,  Clerk 
 
3 The question of Amtech’s liability is settled:  “Amtech [had] 
a duty to defend and indemnify Uniwest,” 280 Va. at 443, 699 S.E.2d 
at 231, “to the extent caused in whole or in part by negligent acts 
or omissions of” Amtech.  Id. at 433, 699 S.E.2d at 225.