By Daniel Fisher | Legal Newsline
A bill that would shift Virginia’s legal landscape dramatically in favor of plaintiff lawyers is one step closer to a vote by the House of Delegates, which could impact sex-abuse cases brought by the firm of its Democrat speaker.
House Bill 1111 exited a key legislative committee this week with plenty of time for legislators to present a final bill to Gov. Abigail Spanberger. It sets up a test for the new Democratic governor, raising the maximum bond defendants must post to appeal civil verdicts from $25 million to $100 million.
Spanberger was elected with the help of significant business interests, but the bill would make it much riskier and more expensive for companies to fight blockbuster jury verdicts on appeal. Plaintiff lawyers, conversely, would use higher appeal bonds as leverage to negotiate bigger settlements and fees for themselves.
One case currently on appeal is a $360 million verdict against Cumberland Hospital, a unit of Universal Health Services. Those defendants needed only to put up $25 million for permission to appeal the Richmond city judgment, but if the bill passes, figures in future similar cases could reach nine figures.
Virginia Speaker of the House Don Scott controls the flow of legislation and also is a partner with Breit Biniazan Trial Lawyers, which won that trial on behalf of three alleged victims of former Cumberland Hospital medical director Daniel Davidow. He is accused of sexual abuse during medical exams.
The firm has more than 40 other clients making similar claims against the hospital and says it is seeking more than $930 million from the litigation.
UHS acknowledges in its most recent financial report if it is forced to post higher appeal bonds, its finances “would be materially adversely impacted.”
The bill was voted out of the Justice Committee 17-5 on Tuesday, with Republicans Jay Leftwich, Wren Williams, Will Davis, Madison Whittle and Justin Pence voting against. Four of the Republicans are lawyers, while Democrats voting for the bill included at least five attorneys at firms with personal injury practices.
The cases against Cumberland Hospital aren’t the only ones brought by Speaker Scott’s firm featuring claims in excess of the current bond cap. In September, Biniazan sued several companies over injuries to a gymnast that left him paralyzed for $350 million. Sexual assault suits could also be costly for the Peoria Unified School District.
Scott is listed as a lawyer in two cases over the chemicals PFAS that are currently in federal court, where his co-workers have asked a judge to send them back to state court in Virginia Beach. The firm says its clients contracted diseases from exposure to PFAS-containing foam while working as firefighters and blames deep-pockets companies like 3M and Honeywell for two deaths.
The House has until Feb. 17 to pass the bill, after which the Senate can take it up or amend. The General Assembly adjourns March 14 and reconvenes April 22 to reconsider bills Gov. Spanberger has vetoed or demanded changes to.
If the bill passes, Virginia would be the only state in recent memory to increase appeal bonds, although several states including Kansas, Hawaii and Louisiana have gone the other way and imposed caps. The American Tort Reform Association has come out strongly against HB 1111, saying it would undermine the ability of defendants to appeal outsized verdicts.
The Virginia Manufacturers Association also recently noted the state’s strongly pro-business reputation is in danger due to rising legal costs and uncertainty. After ranking No. 1 in CNBC’s “America’s Top States for Business” in 2024, Virginia fell to No. 4 in 2025. For manufacturers specifically, Virginia dropped from 7th to 9th nationally in the 9th Annual Virginia Manufacturing Competitiveness Index, the group said.
Gov. Spanberger defeated her Republican challenger last year with a broad base of support including prominent business executives. She received $14 million from Democratic Party organizations, but also drew $205,000 from Thomas J. McInerney, president of Genworth, an insurance company; $200,000 from real estate developer Christopher Clemente; and $143,000 from cigarette manufacturer Altria, according to the Virginia Public Access Project.
The appeal bond bill, and another one that would establish class actions in Virginia state courts, present Gov. Spanberger with the choice of pleasing liberal Democrats and trial lawyers or mollifying business leaders who fear the impact of higher litigation costs.
A previous version of the bill set a $200 million bond cap but was ultimately vetoed by Spanberger’s predecessor, Glenn Youngkin. The first version of the new bill also aimed at a cap of $200 million but was changed ahead of the committee meeting, during which no opposition was voiced other than the five votes against.
The Medical Society of Virginia, which also could be affected by higher appeal bonds, said it has “no position on this bill.”
This report was produced by Legal Newsline and distributed by The Center Square as part of a content-sharing agreement. Reach editor John O’Brien at [email protected].
