Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Articles Posted in Insurance Law
by
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court granting Respondents' motion for partial summary judgment in this insurance dispute, holding that the circuit court's order failed to set forth factual findings sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review.State Farm Fire and Casualty Company appealed the circuit court's partial summary judgment, arguing that the circuit court erred in finding coverage for a bat infestation under a rental dwelling policy it issued to Respondents. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded this action to the circuit court for further development, holding that the circuit court's order was not adequately set forth, leaving the Court unable to determine whether Respondents' motion for partial summary judgment was correctly granted. View "State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Nathaniel Realty, LLC" on Justia Law

by
In this insurance dispute, the Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the circuit court granting partial summary judgment to Insured, denying summary judgment to Insurer, and awarding Insured her attorney's fees, holding that there was no error.At issue in this case was the "medical payments coverage" provision in Insured's automobile insurance contract that required that Insurer reimburse Insured for any medical expenses she "incurred" in an accident. The circuit court concluded that the contract obligated Insurer to reimburse Insured the full amount of Insured's medical bill she received after an automobile accident and further concluded that Insurer was required to reimburse Insured for her attorney's fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no error in the circuit court's interpretation of the medical payments provision in the insurance contract; and (2) there was no error in the circuit court's rulings on costs and attorney's fees. View "Auto Club Property Casualty Insurance Co. v. Moser" on Justia Law

Posted in: Insurance Law
by
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs - Christine Brehm and Amber Hess - in these suits for declarations of coverage against Progressive Max Insurance Company, holding that the circuit court erred in its grant of summary judgment.Plaintiffs were passengers in a Toyota Camry, a rental vehicle operated by Susan Bindernagel, when another driver crashed into the Camry. Bindernagel's insurer, Progressive, denied underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage because the rental vehicle was not a "covered auto" under the policy. The circuit court found that because Plaintiffs had been Bindernagel's guest passengers in the rental car when the crash occurred they were entitled to UIM coverage. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that neither the clear statutory language nor the terms of the insurance policy specifically provided for UIM coverage to those in Plaintiffs' position. View "Progressive Max Insurance Co. v. Brehm" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court enforcing a settlement agreement between Petitioner and his insurer, Respondent Allstate Company, and denying Petitioner's request to amend his complaint or allow the filing of a new complaint, holding that there was no error.The settlement agreement at issue related to water damages occurring at Petitioner's real property. Petitioner failed to execute and return the agreement, after which Respondent filed a motion to enforce settlement. Petitioner then filed a motion to amend the complaint or, in the alternative, allow the filing of a new complaint. The circuit court granted Respondent's motion to enforce the settlement and denied Petitioner's motion to amend. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err as to any of its challenged rulings. View "Donahue v. Mammoth Restoration & Cleaning" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition sought by West Virginia Mutual Insurance Company (Mutual) from the order of the circuit court denying Mutual's motion for summary judgment on common law bad faith claims brought by Michael Covelli, M.D., holding that Mutual demonstrated that the writ of prohibition was appropriate.A jury awarded Dominique Adkins almost $5.8 million on her medical malpractice claim against Dr. Covelli, which was above the limits of his medical malpractice insurance. However, Mutual, Covelli's insurer, settled Adkins's suit within policy limits before the circuit court reduced the verdict to judgment. When a second patient of Dr. Covelli learned of Adkins's large jury award, that patient too sued Dr. Covelli for malpractice. Mutual also settled that claim within policy limits. Thereafter, Dr. Covellie sued Mutual for common law bad faith. At issue was the order of the circuit court denying Mutual's motion for summary judgment on Dr. Covelli's claims. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the circuit court clearly erred by denying Mutual's motion for summary judgment. View "State ex rel. W. Va. Mutual Insurance Co. v. Honorable Salango" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court held in this case that the circuit court had the power to enter an order precluding a party to a West Virginia lawsuit from instituting or prosecuting collateral litigation in a sister state.This lawsuit was brought by a pharmaceutical distributor against the insurance companies that provided it with liability insurance. At issue on appeal was the West Virginia circuit court's "anti-suit injunction" prohibiting the insurance companies from pursuing parallel litigation against the distributor in California. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court clearly had the authority to enter an anti-suit injunction; but (2) an anti-suit injunction was not narrowly tailored to protect the court's authority while respecting the sister state court, necessitating remand. View "St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp." on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit court granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of Mutual Benefit Group and against Eric Parks in this action brought by Mutual Benefit as a result of an automobile accident, holding that the circuit court erred.Mutual Benefit brought this action to recover monies it paid in another action stemming from an automobile accident involving Parks. The magistrate court found in favor of Mutual Benefit. After a trial de novo, the circuit court granted judgment as a matter of law to Mutual Benefit on the grounds that Parks had failed to respond to requests for admissions that Mutual Benefit had served upon him in the magistrate court. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure for Magistrate Courts provide the exclusive means of discovery in magistrate courts and do not provide for parties to serve requests for admission. View "Parks v. Mutual Benefit Group" on Justia Law

by
In these appeals arising from adverse jury verdicts rendered in separate trials following an automobile accident involving Joseph Jenkins and Tessa Jordan, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the circuit court erred in part.The first trial resulted in the jury's calculation of damages sustained by Jenkins and his wife as a result of the accident, which the parties stipulated was caused through the fault of Jordan. The Jenkins also sued Safeco Insurance Company of America and liberty Mutual Insurance Company (collectively, Safeco) for conversion. After a second trial on the Jenkins' claims for compensatory and punitive damages Safeco appealed the jury's determination that the Jenkins were entitled to punitive damages. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the circuit court's order denying the Jordans' motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial and remanded that case for a new trial, holding that the jury should have been instructed on Jenkins' duty to mitigate the loss of his vehicle; and (2) reversed the court's order denying Safeco's motion to reduce the punitive damages award, holding that remand was necessary to review the punitive damages award for excessiveness. View "Jordan v. Jenkins" on Justia Law

by
In this original jurisdiction proceeding, the Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition sought by Petitioners, out-of-state Blue Cross Blue Shield Plans, to prevent the enforcement of the circuit court's order concluding that it had jurisdiction over Petitioners in this action, holding that jurisdiction over Petitioners was clearly not appropriate in this case.Respondent alleged that the circuit court had jurisdiction over Petitioners for several reasons. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that they had no relevant jurisdictional contacts with West Virginia. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that Petitioners purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting business in West Virginia. Petitioners then filed the instant writ, arguing that any attempt to exercise specific jurisdiction over them violated due process because there was no allegation or evidence showing that they developed or maintained a substantial relationship with West Virginia or purposefully engaged in forum-related conduct that gave rise to Respondent's claims. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that Petitioners were entitled to the writ of prohibition. View "State ex rel. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc. v. Honorable Shawn D. Nines" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's order granting summary judgment for Respondents on their declaratory judgment action against Petitioner, their insurer, to determine the rights and responsibilities of the parties under the insurance policy, holding that an exclusion in the policy was applicable so that the policy did not cover Respondents' loss.The building housing Respondents' business was inundated with sewage, causing damage. Respondents were insured by Petitioner under a general commercial liability policy. Petitioner denied coverage for the loss as falling under an exclusion for "water that backs up or overflows from a sewer, drain or sump." Respondents brought a declaratory judgment action to determine the rights of the parties under the insurance contract. The trial court found that the policy exclusion was inapplicable. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred when it found the exclusion to be inapplicable. View "Motorists Mutual Insurance Co. v. Zukoff" on Justia Law

Posted in: Insurance Law