Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The decedent died while participating in the Tough Mudder Mid-Atlantic event in Gerrardstown, Berkeley County, West Virginia. Plaintiff, the decedent’s mother and personal representative, filed a wrongful death action in Marshall County against several Tough Mudder defendants. Defendants objected to the venue and requested that the matter be transferred to Berkeley County. The circuit court concluded that venue was proper in Marshall County. Defendants filed a petition for a writ of prohibition seeking to prevent enforcement of the circuit court’s order. The Supreme Court granted the writ and directed the circuit court of Marshall County to transfer the case to the circuit court of Berkeley County, holding that venue did not lie in Marshall County. View "State ex rel. Airsquid Ventures, Inc. v. Hon. David W. Hummel, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, individually on and behalf of the Estate of Sharon Hanna (the decedent), brought an action against HCR ManorCare, LLC and other entities and individuals engaged in the operation of nursing homes and assisted living facilities (collectively, ManorCare) alleging that the decedent died as a result of substandard care she received at Heartland of Charleston, a ManorCare nursing home. This appeal concerned Plaintiff’s request for production seeking “Center Visit Summaries,” which concerned the treatment of patients at Heartland during the decedent’s residency, and “Briefing Packets,” which consisted of reports and meeting minutes received by the board of directors of each ManorCare corporate entity relating to the decedent’s residency at Heartland. The circuit court directed ManorCare to produce the documents requested. Defendants asked the Supreme Court for relief in prohibition to prevent the enforcement of the circuit court’s orders. The Supreme Court granted the requested relief as moulded, holding (1) ManorCare’s requested relief concerning the Center Visit Summaries was without merit; but (2) the circuit court exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the production of the board of director Briefing Packets, as the court should have conducted an in camera proceeding to make an independent determination as to whether the Briefing Packets were excluded from discovery pursuant to the attorney-client privilege. View "State ex rel. HCR Manorcare, LLC v. Hon. Stucky" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs’ car and a work-truck owned by Energy Corporation of America (ECA) were involved in a wreck that occurred in Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs filed a tort claim in Harrison County against ECA. The circuit court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims for improper venue. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a bad faith claim in Harrison County against their insurer and joined ECA as a co-defendant, seeking tort damages for the wreck. ECA filed a motion to sever for improper joinder and dismiss for improper venue. The circuit court denied relief, concluding (1) joinder of ECA and Plaintiffs’ insurer was improper under W. Va. R. Civ. P. 20; and (2) Harrison County was a proper venue for ECA based on the “venue-giving defendant” principle. ECA petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition. The Supreme Court granted the writ as moulded, holding (1) the joinder of Plaintiffs’ insurer and ECA was improper because it failed to satisfy the requirements under Rule 20(a); and (2) once Plaintiffs’ insurer is properly severed from the claim against ECA, there will be no venue-giving defendant in this action, and therefore, Harrison County was not a proper venue for ECA. View "State ex rel. Energy Corp. of Am. v. Hon. John Lewis Marks" on Justia Law

Nineteen unrelated mothers brought in the Circuit Court of Wayne County claims against Pfizer, Inc. and related entities (collectively, Respondents) on behalf of their respective minor children, alleging that their ingestion of Zoloft during their pregnancies caused their children to suffer birth defects. Petitioners hailed from fifteen different states. Respondents moved to refer the litigation to the Mass Litigation Panel. After the motion was denied, a virtually identical complaint was filed in the Wayne County Circuit Court by six unrelated plaintiff families against Respondents. The circuit court consolidated the two civil actions. The twenty-five plaintiff families then moved to refer the litigation to the Panel. The chief justice transferred the two civil actions to the Panel. Respondents filed a motion seeking to dismiss twenty-two non-resident plaintiff families on the basis of forum non conveniens. The Panel granted, in part, the motion to dismiss and dismissed twenty of the twenty-two plaintiff families. Petitioner sought a writ of prohibition to prevent enforcement of the Panel’s dismissal order. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that there was no basis to prevent the Panel from enforcing its dismissal order. View "State ex rel. J.C. v. Hon. James P. Mazzone" on Justia Law

Lexon Insurance Company (“Lexon”) issued two performance bonds to DLM, LLC. Both bonds named Berkeley County as the obligee. DLM later defaulted under both bonds. Berkeley County filed this action against Lexon and DLM, seeking “specific performance of the Surety’s obligations according to the terms of the subject bonds” in addition to its costs and expenses. Berkeley County subsequently filed a motion for default judgment, pursuant to W. Va. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1), against Lexon. The circuit court entered default judgment against Lexon for the total face value of the two bonds at issue, plus post judgment interest. The circuit court denied Lexon’s motion to set aside default judgment. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s order denying Lexon’s motion to set aside default judgment, holding (1) because the damages sought in this case were not a “sum certain” as required by Rule 55(b)(1), default judgment was improperly granted under that rule; and (2) default judgment was improperly entered under the unique circumstances of this case where the parties failed to follow the Rules of Civil Procedure pertaining to the extension of the time for filing an answer. View "Lexon Ins. v. County Council of Berkeley County" on Justia Law

Respondent filed a complaint in the Kanawha County Circuit Court asserting claims against Petitioners for breach of contract, age discrimination, unlawful retaliation, and unpaid wages. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that Kanawha County was not the proper venue based on the provisions of the general venue statute. The circuit court denied Petitioners’ motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court subsequently granted Petitioners’ requested writ of prohibition, holding that the trial court erred in ruling that venue was proper in Kanawha County, and instead, venue was proper in Logan County because the underlying cause of action transpired in Logan County. View "State ex rel. Thornhill Group, Inc. v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law

In 2012, nineteen plaintiff families filed a single complaint alleging products liability and negligence claims against Defendants. In 2013, six plaintiff families filed a single complaint also alleging products liability and negligence claims against Defendants. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court referred Plaintiffs as two civil actions to the Mass Litigation Panel. The Panel entered an order that transformed the two civil actions into twenty-five separate actions. Plaintiffs sought a writ of prohibition to preclude enforcement of the order on the grounds that the Panel did not have the authority to alter their status as two civil actions. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the Panel did not have the authority to separate the cases. View "State ex rel. J.C. v. Judge Mazzone" on Justia Law

This case had its origins in a property damage action brought by Jason and Gina Corrick against B&B Transit, Inc. B&B Transit filed a notice and coverage claim with its insurer, Montpelier US Insurance Company. Montpelier eventually settled the case against B&B Transit. While the Corricks’ complaint was still pending, Respondents, including B&B Transit, filed a first-party bad faith claim against Petitioners, including Montpelier and its national coverage counsel, Charlston, Revich & Wollitz (“CRW”). Respondents subsequently served discovery requests on Petitioners. After CRW opposed disclosure of certain requested documents, Respondents filed a motion to compel disclosure of the documents. The circuit court entered an order requiring CRW to disclose certain documents. Petitioners sought a writ of prohibition to prevent enforcement of the circuit court’s discovery order. The Supreme Court granted the writ of prohibition as moulded, concluding that part of the circuit court’s order permitting discovery of documents sought by Respondents was prohibited from enforcement because the documents were protected under the attorney-client privilege. View "State ex rel. Montpelier US Ins. Co. v. Hon. Bloom" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed tort claims against Mine Safety Appliances Company (“MSA”). Plaintiffs settled with MSA under settlement agreements that assigned to Plaintiffs the right to recover the remainder of the settlement amount under an insurance policy that North River Insurance Company sold to MSA. MSA then amended their complaints to add claims against North River, and MSA filed cross-claims against North River. In the meantime, earlier-filed litigation between North River and MSA was pending in Pennsylvania and Delaware. North River filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for a stay of the proceedings, arguing that West Virginia was an inconvenient forum and the proceedings should be dismissed pending resolution of the out-of-state litigation. The circuit court denied the motions. The Supreme Court denied the writ of prohibition subsequently sought by North River, holding that the circuit court did not err in (1) denying North River’s motion to dismiss where strong deference was according to Plaintiffs’ choice of forum and considerations relevant to a forum non conveniens analysis suggest no basis for dismissal of the action; and (2) denying the motion to stay the proceedings, as it would be unfair and prejudicial to Plaintiffs to delay the trials unnecessarily. View "State ex rel. N. River Ins. Co. v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law