Virginia, Virginia law applies to this dispute. 3 .See Gov’t Employees Ins. Co. v. Moore, 266 Va. 155, 164, 580 S.E.2d 823, 828 (2003) (" [c]ontracts of insurance ... are not made by or for casuists or sophists, and the obvious meaning of their plain terms is not to be discarded for some curious, hidden sense, which nothing but the exigency of a hard case and the ingenuity of an acute mind would discover.”) (quoting Bowden v. Am. Cent. Ins. Co., 153 Va. 416, 426, 150 S.E. 257, 260 (1929)); Pham v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 419 F.3d 286, 289 (4th Cir.2005) (“When the terms and provisions are clear, there must be given to such terms and provisions the construction and effect consonant with the apparent object.”). 4 . The parties did not squarely address w , 424, 389 S.E.2d 476, 477 (1990) (<HOLDING>). 11 . See, e.g., Haislip v. Southern Heritage
holding that the relationship between fire insurance regulation and rating fire loss fire prevention and fire investigation is rational and reasonable holding that defendant who admitted that he knew when he deliberately drove off in his truck that he was disobeying an officers lawful order to park his truck at the side of the road had engaged in conduct that was both knowing and willful holding that petition failed to allege fire hydrants were physically defective where fire hydrants did not work and plaintiffs decedent was killed in fire holding that a fire fighter was using a fire truck when he was standing 2025 feet from the truck using a clipboard and writing pad that were stored in the truck holding that damage to building and personal property as a result of fire negligently caused by defendant was to be measured by reasonable cash market value of the property at the time it was destroyed by the fire or if it was not totally destroyed by the diminution in its fair market value before and after the fire