Present: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Lemons, Agee,* and 

Goodwyn, JJ., and Russell, S.J. 

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY 

COMPANY OF AMERICA 

OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR. 

v. Record No. 071421 September 12, 2008 

LESLIE C. ELY, ET AL. 

FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

I. 

 In these consolidated appeals from the Court of Appeals, 

we consider whether certain policies of workers' compensation 

and employers' liability insurance were "nonrenewed by the 

insurer" within the intendment of Code § 65.2-804(B), thereby 

requiring the insurer to provide notice to the Virginia 

Workers' Compensation Commission before the policies could be 

terminated. 

II. 

A. 

 Travelers Property Casualty Company of America 

(Travelers) issued a workers' compensation and employers' 

liability insurance policy to Graycon, Inc. The policy was 

effective July 30, 2003 through July 30, 2004. In May 2004, 

Travelers informed Graycon by letter that the policy would 

expire on July 30, 2004 unless Graycon paid the renewal 

 *

 Justice Agee participated in the hearing and decision of 

this case prior to his retirement from the Court on June 30, 
premium and renewed the policy. Travelers also informed 

Graycon in the letter that "[i]n order to avoid a lapse in 

coverage, your renewal payment must be received by the due 

date shown on your bill" and that if the premium was not 

received by the due date, the "policy will expire." Graycon 

did not submit the premium before the due date. 

 On September 17, 2004, Leslie C. Ely was injured while 

performing work on a house that was being constructed. J.F. 

Schoch Building Corporation, the general contractor, retained 

Bruce Gray Construction as a subcontractor. Bruce Gray 

Construction, in turn, retained Graycon, Inc., as a 

subcontractor, and Ely "was working for Graycon at the time of 

his injury." Ely submitted a workers' compensation claim, and 

Travelers denied coverage of the claim because Graycon failed 

to pay the premium before the due date. 

 Ely filed a claim for benefits with the Virginia Workers' 

Compensation Commission (the Commission), and a deputy 

commissioner concluded that the workers' compensation 

insurance policy issued by Travelers was not in effect at the 

time of Ely's accident, even though Travelers did not notify 

the Commission that the policy had expired. The Building 

Insurance Association, Inc., a statutory employer's insurer, 

appeared before the Commission and argued that the policy of 

 

2008. 

2
insurance remained in effect because of Travelers' failure to 

provide notice to the Commission. The Commission rejected the 

deputy commissioner's opinion and held that Travelers' 

workers' compensation and employers' liability insurance 

policy issued to Graycon remained in effect at the time of 

Ely's accident because Travelers failed to notify the 

Commission that the policy had not been renewed. The 

Commission held that the policy remained in effect and that 

Travelers is "responsible for [the] benefits associated with 

[Ely's] compensable injury by accident." Travelers appealed 

to the Court of Appeals. 

B. 

 Travelers issued a workers' compensation and employers' 

liability insurance policy to Willie M. Thomas Home 

Improvements (Thomas Home Improvements). The policy was 

effective October 25, 2003 through October 25, 2004. In 

August 2004, Travelers sent Thomas Home Improvements a letter 

offering to renew the policy. Travelers also submitted a 

renewal premium notice and a bill for the new premium, but 

Thomas Home Improvements failed to pay the premium. 

 On December 16, 2004, Matthew L. Bailey, an employee of 

Thomas Home Improvements, was injured while working within the 

scope and course of his employment. He submitted a workers' 

compensation claim. Travelers denied coverage of the claim 

3
because it considered the Thomas Home Improvements policy to 

have expired since the renewal premium had not been paid. 

 Bailey filed a claim for benefits with the Commission. A 

deputy commissioner held that Travelers was required to pay 

benefits because it failed to notify the Commission of "the 

non-renewal of the employer's policy" that Travelers had 

issued. The Uninsured Employers' Fund of Virginia appeared 

before the Commission and supported the deputy commissioner's 

decision. The Commission agreed with the deputy commissioner 

and entered an order holding that Travelers is "responsible 

for [the] benefits associated with [Bailey's] compensable 

injury by accident." Travelers appealed to the Court of 

Appeals. 

C. 

 The Court of Appeals consolidated the aforementioned 

cases, and a panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the 

Commission's orders. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Ely, 

49 Va. App. 271, 640 S.E.2d 520 (2007). Upon a rehearing en 

banc, an evenly divided Court of Appeals approved the 

Commission's orders, and the court did not issue an opinion. 

Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Ely, 49 Va. App. 807, 645 

S.E.2d 342 (2007). Travelers appeals. 

III. 

 Code § 65.2-804(B) states: 

4
 "B. No policy of insurance hereafter issued 

under the provisions of this title, nor any 

membership agreement in a group self-insurance 

association, shall be cancelled or nonrenewed by the 

insurer issuing such policy or by the group selfinsurance association cancelling or nonrenewing such 

membership, except on thirty days' notice to the 

employer and the Workers' Compensation Commission, 

unless the employer has obtained other insurance and 

the Workers' Compensation Commission is notified of 

that fact by the insurer assuming the risk, or 

unless, in the event of cancellation, said 

cancellation is for nonpayment of premiums; then ten 

days' notice shall be given the employer and the 

Workers' Compensation Commission." 

(Emphasis added). 

Travelers argues that the workers' compensation and 

employers' liability insurance policies that it issued to 

Graycon and Thomas Home Improvements expired when they failed 

to pay the premiums and renew the policies. Continuing, 

Travelers asserts that Code § 65.2-804(B) is unambiguous, and 

pursuant to the plain language of this statute, Travelers had 

no statutory obligation to notify the Commission that the 

policy had expired because the insurance policies were not 

"cancelled or nonrenewed by the insurer issuing such policy" 

within the meaning of Code § 65.2-804(B). 

Responding, Thomas Home Improvements, Graycon, J.F. 

Schoch Building Corporation, Uninsured Employers' Fund, and 

Building Insurance Association, Inc. (hereinafter collectively 

referred to as Employers), argue that Code § 65.2-804(B) is 

ambiguous and that the notice requirements contained in this 

5
statute apply to all "nonrenewals, irrespective . . . whether 

it was the insurer or the employer who initiated the 

nonrenewal." Continuing, the Employers assert that the 

Commission correctly determined that the insurance policies 

remained in effect when Ely and Bailey were injured because 

Travelers failed to give the statutorily prescribed notices. 

We disagree with the Employers' contentions. 

The construction of a statute presents a question of law 

that this Court reviews de novo on appeal. Jackson v. 

Commonwealth, 274 Va. 630, 633, 652 S.E.2d 111, 113, (2007); 

accord Robinson v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 45, 51, 645 S.E.2d 

470, 473 (2007). This Court, when interpreting a statute, 

must "ascertain and give effect to the intention of the 

legislature." Chase v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 266 Va. 544, 

547, 587 S.E.2d 521, 522 (2003); accord Boynton v. Kilgore, 

271 Va. 220, 227, 623 S.E.2d 922, 925 (2006). 

We have stated the following principles that we must 

apply when determining whether a statute is ambiguous: 

 "Language is ambiguous if it admits of being 

understood in more than one way or refers to two or 

more things simultaneously. Lincoln National Life 

Ins. Co. v. Commonwealth Corrugated Container Corp., 

229 Va. 132, 136-37, 327 S.E.2d 98, 101 (1985). An 

ambiguity exists when the language is difficult to 

comprehend, is of doubtful import, or lacks 

clearness and definiteness. Ayres v. Harleysville 

Mut. Casualty Co., 172 Va. 383, 393, 2 S.E.2d 303, 

307 (1939). If language is clear and unambiguous, 

there is no need for construction by the court; the 

6
plain meaning and intent of the enactment will be 

given it. School Board of Chesterfield County v. 

School Board of the City of Richmond, 219 Va. 244, 

250, 247 S.E.2d 380, 384 (1978)." 

Brown v. Lukhard, 229 Va. 316, 321, 330 S.E.2d 84, 87 (1985); 

accord Gillespie v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 753, 758, 636 S.E.2d 

430, 432 (2006); Lynch v. Commonwealth Transp. Comm'r, 255 Va. 

227, 231, 495 S.E.2d 247, 249 (1998). 

 Applying the aforementioned principles, we hold that Code 

§ 65.2-804(B) is not ambiguous. The language in Code § 65.2-

804(B) is clear, is not difficult to comprehend, and does not 

admit of being understood in more than one way. Therefore, in 

deciding the meaning of Code § 65.2-804(B), we will consider 

the plain language contained therein. VYVX of Va., Inc. v. 

Cassell, 258 Va. 276, 292, 519 S.E.2d 124, 132 (1999); Haislip 

v. Southern Heritage Ins. Co., 254 Va. 265, 268, 492 S.E.2d 

135, 137 (1997); Abbott v. Willey, 253 Va. 88, 91, 479 S.E.2d 

528, 530 (1997). 

 Applying the plain language in Code § 65.2-804(B), we 

hold that Travelers was not required to comply with the 

notification provisions of that statute. An insurer must 

comply with the statutorily prescribed notification mandates 

if its policy of insurance is "cancelled or nonrenewed by the 

insurer issuing such policy." Code § 65.2-804(B). Travelers 

offered to renew the policies but Graycon and Thomas Home 

7
Improvements did not pay the workers' compensation and 

employers' liability insurance premiums that were required in 

order to renew the policies. Graycon and Thomas Home 

Improvements voluntarily chose to allow their insurance 

policies to expire as contemplated by the specific terms of 

those policies. Thus, Graycon and Thomas Home Improvements, 

not Travelers, caused the policies of workers' compensation 

and employers' liability insurance at issue to expire. Any 

contrary construction or application of Code § 65.2-804(B) 

would render the phrase "nonrenewed by the insurer issuing 

such policy" mere surplusage, which is contrary to the settled 

rule in this Commonwealth that every provision in or part of a 

statute shall be given effect if possible. Level 3 Commcn's 

of Va., Inc. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 268 Va. 471, 477-78, 604 

S.E.2d 71, 74 (2004); Cook v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 111, 114, 

597 S.E.2d 84, 86 (2004); Tilton v. Commonwealth, 196 Va. 774, 

784, 85 S.E.2d 368, 374 (1955). 

IV. 

 We hold that Travelers was not required to comply with 

the notice provisions contained in Code § 65.2-804(B) because 

the insurance policies that are the subject of this appeal 

were not "nonrenewed by the insurer issuing such polic[ies]." 

Thus, these insurance policies were not in effect when Ely and 

Bailey were injured. In view of our holdings, we need not 

8
9

consider the litigants' remaining arguments. We will reverse 

the judgments of the Court of Appeals, and we will enter final 

judgments here in favor of Travelers. 

Reversed and final judgment.