§ 8.01-232.Effect of promises not to plead statute of limitations.

Parties sometimes agree, during settlement talks, that a defendant will not raise a limitations defense while they try to work things out. Section 8.01-232 sets the rules for when that kind of agreement holds up. An unwritten promise not to plead the statute is void as a general matter — it cannot be enforced on its own terms. A written promise fares better, but only if three conditions line up: it was made to avoid or defer litigation while a claim that has already accrued is pending settlement, it is signed by the promisor or an agent, and the promisee sues within the earlier of the original limitations period (measured from the date of the promise) or any shorter deadline the promise itself specifies.

Underneath those formal rules sits an equitable backstop: whenever failing to enforce a promise, written or not, would work a fraud on the promisee, the promisor is estopped from pleading the statute regardless of the writing requirement. That estoppel principle protects a party who reasonably relied on an informal assurance and let the deadline slip as a result.

The section also protects two groups from being bound by someone else’s words. An acknowledgment or promise by a decedent’s personal representative cannot revive a claim otherwise barred against the estate, and an acknowledgment or promise by one of several joint contractors cannot bind the others who did not make it. Subsection D then carves a narrow exception back out for construction-industry subcontracts tied to public contracts, where written waivers made in connection with those subcontracts can bind the parties to that specific arrangement.