The caption
The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC
Smith v. Colonial Ins. Co. of California
No. 982070Supreme Court of Virginia
982070 Smith v. Colonial Ins. Co. of California 06/11/1999 In a motor vehicle insurance case in which the insured made material misrepresentations when applying for insurance, the trial court correctly decided…
The clerk's words are shown exactly as filed.The activity
Orders, motions, and filings in the clerk's own words and sequence.
The source
The official docket and available court documents attached to every update.
982070 Smith v. Colonial Ins. Co. of California 06/11/1999 In a motor vehicle insurance case in which the insured made material m…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- June 11, 1999
No bill or executive-order citation is attached to this file.
Official docket
Case timeline
The clerk's wording is shown verbatim and linked to the court's own document page where available.
Docket entry
982070 Smith v. Colonial Ins. Co. of California 06/11/1999 In a motor vehicle insurance case in which the insured made material misrepresentations when applying for insurance, the trial court correctly decided that the parol evidence rule did not apply to testimony about questions asked of the insured and the insured's verbal answers to those questions during the application process. The judgment below is affirmed.
Open court document ↗Rulings in this case over time
Courts at different levels and stages can reach different results in the same case. Each entry is the court's own record; read it before drawing a conclusion.
1 entry, oldest first.
· Supreme Court of Virginia
Affirmed
The court's record, as written
982070 Smith v. Colonial Ins. Co. of California 06/11/1999 In a motor vehicle insurance case in which the insured made material misrepresentations when applying for insurance, the trial court correctly decided that the parol evidence rule did not apply to testimony about questions asked of the insured and the insured's verbal answers to those questions during the application process. The judgment below is affirmed.
Outcome words in this text: affirmed.
Method: an entry is marked with an outcome only when its own text contains the outcome word, and the word is shown beside it. Orders, opinions and judgments whose text does not say are marked Other. Party filings, notices and routine procedural orders (appearances, extra pages, time extensions, scheduling) are not listed. No link between this case and any other case is recorded in our data, so only this case's own record is shown. Open the court's docket
Documents and links