Court Opinion

ID: 9567941
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:59:11.288969+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:23:17.341400
License: Public Domain

*44JUSTICE COMPTON,
concurring.
This is another episode of judicial legislation, but it carries on the tradition in this area of insurance law established by William v. City of Newport News, 240 Va. 425, 397 S.E.2d 813 (1990), in which I dissented, and compounded by Dale v. City of Newport News, 243 Va. 48, 412 S.E.2d 701 (1992), in which I concurred because I felt bound by the precedent of William.
Code § 46.2-368(B) speaks of “protection against the uninsured motorist to the extent required” by the uninsured motorist statute, Code § 38.2-2206. Today, the majority legislates a change in the foregoing statutory language so that it now reads “protection against the uninsured motorist, including underinsurance coverage, to the extent required by” the uninsured motorist statute. I think that if language is to be added to § 46.2-368(B), it should be added by the General Assembly, not this Court.
I must concede, however, that this further legislative step is consistent with the steps taken in William and Dale. Therefore, although-1 continue to object, I am bound by the former cases and must concur in the present decision.