clause at issue in this case is enforceable. Assuming without deciding that the “Other Insurance” clause in the Farmers policy is enforceable in Virginia, the Court finds that the self-insurance in this case is not “collectible insurance” as that term is contemplated by the “Other Insurance” clause. While the question of whether self-insurance is included in the definition of “collectible insurance” in the context of “Other Insurance” clauses has not been decided in Virginia, numerous other courts throughout the country have concluded that self-insurance is not included in the definition of “collectible insurance.” See, e.g., Wake County Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. National Cas. Co., 804 F. Supp. 768, 777 (E.D. N.C. 1992), aff'd, No. 92-2586, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 15159 (4th Cir. June 22, 1993) (<HOLDING>); Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Universal Atlas
holding that the certificate of selfinsurance filed with the commissioner is the functional equivalent of an insurance policy for purposes of minnesotas nofault statutes minnstat  65b49 subd 31 2002 holding that selfinsurance does not constitute other valid and collectible insurance recognizing that a mistake of fact may constitute a valid defense holding damages do not constitute other equitable relief holding that probation does not constitute a sentence