Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

J.F. Allen Corporation (J.F. Allen), a utility contractor, and the Sanitary Board of the City of Charleston (CSB), a utility owner, entered into a written agreement for a construction project involving improvements to the City of Charleston’s municipal sewer system. Final completion was delayed under the contract, and adjustments were made that increased the contract price. After final payment was made under the contract, J.F. Allen sought additional compensation for extra, non-contractual work. After CSB refused the request J.F. Allen filed a complaint alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Upon CSB’s motion, the circuit court dismissed, with prejudice, the breach of contract claim pursuant to W. Va. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that J.F. Allen set forth a claim upon which relief could be granted. Remanded. View "J.F. Allen Corp. v. Sanitary Bd. of City of Charleston" on Justia Law

This appeal involved three different leases negotiated by Defendant between plaintiff-landowners and an oil and gas company. Each of the three leases engendered a different lawsuit against Defendant. In each case, Plaintiffs claimed that the nature of the services provided by Defendant constituted the unauthorized practice of law. Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ lawsuits and sought to compel Plaintiffs to participate in arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause in each lease. Plaintiffs challenged the arbitration clauses as void on the grounds that the arbitration clauses were contrary to public policy because they were procured through the unauthorized practice of law. In all three suits, the circuit court concluded that a plaintiff’s claim that a defendant engaged in the unauthorized practice of law can never, as a matter of matter of state law, be referred to arbitration. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that any state-based rule that prohibits outright the arbitration of a particular type of claim is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. View "Geological Assessment & Leasing v. O'Hara" on Justia Law

The complex issues at issue in these three consolidated appeals revolved around four overlapping leases to extract oil and gas from land owned by Plaintiff. Each lease contained an arbitration clause. Plaintiff filed the instant case against Defendants seeking a declaration as to which lease was controlling as to which defendants and seeking damages from Defendants. The circuit court entered an order voiding two of the four leases, addressing the substantive terms of two other leases, and compelling the parties to arbitrate any remaining claims by Plaintiff. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the circuit court (1) properly found the arbitration clause in one lease to be unenforceable and correctly ruled that the entire lease was unenforceable; (2) erred in compelling certain defendants to participate in arbitration under the terms of a second lease but did not err when it made findings of fact and conclusions of law that addressed the substance of Plaintiff’s claims regarding that lease; (3) erred in voiding a third lease, and its included arbitration clause, in violation the doctrine of severability; and (4) erred in its substantive rulings interpreting a fourth lease, as the court should have referred questions about the lease to arbitration. View "Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC v. Hickman" on Justia Law

The case involved an alleged fraudulent scheme involving United Bank and McQuade Appraisal Services (collectively, Respondents) to inflate the value of property in a residential development called Walnut Springs Mountain Reserve (Walnut Springs). Walnut Springs ultimately failed and was abandoned by the developer. Petitioners were owners of lots in Walnut Springs. The circuit court dismissed Petitioners’ claims, concluding, inter alia, that the majority of the claims were time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the circuit court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims for fraud in the inducement and aiding and abetting fraud in the inducement, negligence, intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, respondent superior, and punitive damages, as the claims were not time-barred; and (2) affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ remaining claims, holding that the court’s judgment regarding these claims was not in error. View "Evans v. United Bank, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff entered into a verbal contract with Jerry Morrison for the construction of a log home on her property. Plaintiff entered into a second verbal contract with James Phillips to build the basement walls and a chimney with two fireplaces. Concerned about the number of apparent defects in the construction and excessive costs of the labor and materials, Plaintiff fired Morrison. Plaintiff later filed suit against Morrison and Phillips (together, Defendants), alleging fraud and misrepresentation, breach of contract, and negligence, among other claims. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff only with respect to her negligence claim against Morrison. The jury further found that Plaintiff had failed to mitigate her damages and/or was comparatively negligent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in (1) limiting the time the parties had to present the case to the jury; (2) placing limitations on expert testimony; (3) granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of Phillips; (4) denying Plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a matter of law with respect to her negligence and breach of warranty claims against Morrison; (5) instructing the jury on comparative negligence; (6) instructing the jury on outrageous conduct; and (7) denying Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. View "Sneberger v. Morrison" on Justia Law

Jarrett Smith was injured when his vehicle collided with a truck owned by Modular Building Consultants of West Virginia, Inc. and operated by Billy Joe McLaughlin. Prior to the collision, McLaughlin had arrived at a job site to retrieve a Modular storage container being leased and utilized by Poerio, Inc. Smith filed suit against Modular, alleging negligence. Modular brought a third-party complaint against Poerio, seeking contribution and indemnification pursuant to the lease agreement. Before trial, Modular settled with Smith. Trial as to Modular’s third-party complaint proceeded. A jury found that Poerio did not breach the lease agreement but found that Poerio, Modular, and Smith were all comparatively negligent. The circuit court subsequently entered judgment in Poerio’s favor on its contribution claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the jury’s finding that Poerio was negligent was not inconsistent with its finding that Poerio did not breach the lease agreement; (2) the circuit court erred in ruling that Modular’s contribution claim was extinguished by its good faith settlement with Smith as a matter of law; but (3) the jury’s verdict was neither inconsistent nor impermissibly considered the comparative fault of Smith. View "Modular Building Consultants of W. Va., Inc. v. Poerio, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs signed a form contract with Defendant for the construction of a house. The contract contained an arbitration clause within which was a provision that Defendant contended was a “delegation provision” stating that the parties agreed to delegate, from the courts to an arbitrator, any question about the enforceability of the arbitration clause. Plaintiffs later filed a complaint against Defendant for alleged defects in the house. The circuit court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration clause was procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court should have enforced the delegation provision and referred the parties’ claims about arbitrability to arbitration. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the delegation provision did not reflect a clear and unmistakable intent by the parties to assign to the arbitrator all questions about the enforceability of the arbitration clause; and (2) the circuit court was correct in deciding that the arbitration provision was unenforceable under West Virginia contract law. View "Schumacher Homes of Circleville v. Spencer" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an attorney, and Respondent, a non-lawyer, entered into a fee-sharing agreement in connection with certain lawsuits. Petitioner later filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment on the issue of whether Respondent was entitled to compensation for services he performed in relation to the litigation, seeking a ruling as to whether a sharing of legal fees with Respondent would violate Rule 5.4 of the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct. The federal district court certified the following question to the Supreme Court: “Are the West Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct statements of public policy with the force of law equal to that given to statutes enacted by the West Virginia State Legislature?” The Supreme Court affirmed the question, as modified, in the affirmative, holding (1) Rule 5.4, which proscribes the sharing of fees between lawyers or law firms and non-lawyers, is an explicit judicial declaration of West Virginia public policy with the force and effect of law; and (2) accordingly, a fee-sharing agreement between a lawyer or law firm and the non-lawyer that violates the provisions of Rule 5.4 is void as against public policy and wholly unenforceable. View "Rich v. Simoni" on Justia Law

In purchasing a vehicle, Robin Hinkle and her former husband purchased GAP Insurance issued by Safe-Guard Products International, LLC (Safe-Guard). The Hinkles were told that the GAP Insurance would relieve them of payment owed on the vehicle if it was declared a total loss as a result of an accident and more was owed for the vehicle than the value assigned to it at the time it was totaled. Robin was later involved in an accident that resulted in her vehicle being declared a total loss. To pay off the balance owed on the vehicle, Robin submitted a claim to Safe-Guard under the GAP Insurance. Safe-Guard denied coverage. Robin subsequently filed this action against Safe-Guard, alleging breach of contract and bad faith. Robin filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether the GAP Insurance constituted insurance under state law for purposes of this litigation. The circuit court granted the motion. Thereafter, Safe-Guard initiated the instant proceeding seeking a writ of prohibition to preclude enforcement of the partial summary judgment order. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Safe-Guard’s GAP Insurance constituted insurance under the laws of West Virginia. View "State ex rel. Safe-Guard Prods. Int’l LLC v. Hon. Miki Thompson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Quicken Loans, Inc., alleging that Quicken committed common law fraud and violated the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act in connection with a loan agreement between Plaintiff and Quicken. The circuit court found in favor of Plaintiff on all but one of her claims. The Supreme Court reversed in part, concluding that the circuit court improperly cancelled Plaintiff’s obligation to repay the loan principal, failed to support its punitive damages award with the correct analysis, and failed to offset the compensatory damages award against Plaintiff’s pretrial settlement with defendants who did not proceed to trial. After remand, the circuit court entered an opinion and order. The Supreme Court again reversed, holding that the circuit court (1) improperly created a lien on Plaintiff’s property; (2) erred in increasing the compensatory damages award to Plaintiff; (3) erred in awarding attorney fees and costs for both the first appellate proceeding and the post-appellate proceedings; (4) improperly increased the punitive damages award; and (5) erred in refusing to offset Plaintiff’s award of attorney fees and costs by a pretrial settlement between Plaintiff and the codefendants. Remanded. View "Quicken Loans, Inc. v. Brown" on Justia Law