Id. at *6. Of course, another court’s interpretation of the exact policy at issue is more persuasive than cases addressing different policies with different contractual language. It is true, as Plaintiffs points out, that even when the language of a contract is unambiguous, the Court must still ensure that construing the contract according to its plain meaning does not give rise to absurd results. As Judge Posner explained, “when the application of a rule leads to a truly whacky result, a more than suspicion arises that the parties can’t have set so high a value on clarity that they would have thought such an application a proper interpretation of the rule.” Level 3 Communications, Inc., 168 F.3d at 958; see also Government Employees Ins. Co., 266 Va. at 167, 580 S.E.2d 823 (<HOLDING>); Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Myers, 161 Va.
holding that contracts should be interpreted to avoid absurd results recognizing that courts should not construe statutes in a way that leads to absurd results recognizing that to avoid absurd results the court has a duty to interpret the rules of criminal procedure with logic and common sense holding that courts should avoid interpretations of statutes which would produce absurd results holding that virginia courts must avoid absurd results