An Act to amend and reenact § 46.2-1527.3 of the Code of Virginia, relating to Motor Vehicle Transaction Recovery Fund; recovery for breach of extended service contracts.
HB1386 amends Virginia’s Motor Vehicle Transaction Recovery Fund statute to make clear that a person who wins a final judgment for losses caused by a breach of an extended service contract for a motor vehicle may seek payment from the Fund, so long as the judgment was entered against a participating licensed or registered motor vehicle dealer. The bill keeps the existing framework for claims based on fraud or other violations of the motor vehicle dealer laws, and it preserves the filing window for claims: no earlier than 30 days and no later than 12 months after the judgment becomes final.
The measure also addresses how attorney fees and court costs may be paid from the Fund. If those fees and costs were awarded by the court and supported by a detailed, itemized affidavit from counsel, the Fund may include them in the payment. If the trial court’s fee award was not based on that level of documentation, the Board may limit reimbursement to fees directly tied to the compensable portion of the judgment and may require additional itemization before paying the claim.
The bill expands the types of judgments eligible for recovery from the Motor Vehicle Transaction Recovery Fund by expressly adding breaches of extended service contracts, which are defined elsewhere in Virginia law. It also clarifies the Board’s authority to scrutinize and limit attorney-fee claims, potentially reducing Fund payouts where fee documentation is incomplete or where only part of a judgment is compensable. The practical effect is to broaden consumer recourse against participating motor vehicle dealers while tightening administrative review of fee requests.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the supplied materials. Based on the bill text, the measure appears consumer-protective and administratively focused, with a likely goal of improving recovery options for purchasers and lessees harmed by dealer misconduct or contract breaches. The absence of recorded controversy suggests the bill may have been relatively noncontroversial or at least not documented in the materials provided.
The main policy issue in the bill is the scope of recovery from the Fund. Consumer claimants and their counsel would favor the new ability to recover for breaches of extended service contracts, while the Board and Fund administrators may be concerned about increased claims and payouts. A second point of contention is attorney fees: the bill requires detailed documentation for full reimbursement and gives the Board discretion to limit fees when the trial court’s award is not supported by an itemized affidavit, which could be viewed as a safeguard against excessive claims but also as a restriction on recovery for prevailing claimants.