Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Board of Review (BOR) affirming the finding of the Office of Judges (OOJ) that Respondent's claim for occupational pneumoconiosis benefits against Petitioner was timely, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to relief on its allegations of error.The claims representative for Petitioner's worker's compensation insurance carrier found that Respondent's claim for benefits was filed outside of the pertinent three-year statute of limitations and therefore denied it. The OOJ reversed, ruling that Respondent was not time-barred from filing his claim. Thereafter, the Occupational Pneumoconiosis Board found that Respondent had a ten-percent impairment. The BOR affirmed on the timeliness issue. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the BOR did not clearly err in finding that Respondent filed his occupational pneumoconiosis claim within the three-year limitations period. View "Argus Energy, LLC v. Marenko" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court converted this interlocutory appeal to a petition for a writ of prohibition in this negligence action and granted extraordinary relief, holding that a discretionary writ of prohibition should issue in this case.Plaintiff brought this case against West Virginia University Hospitals (WVUH) for the alleged negligence of two emergency room physicians, both of whom were employees of the West Virginia University Board of Governors, on a theory of ostensible agency. WVUH filed a motion to dismiss that was converted into a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it could not be held liable on a theory of ostensible agency under W. Va. Code 55-7B-9(g), which insulates non-employer healthcare providers from ostensible agency liability if the agent maintains a requisite amount of insurance coverage for the injury. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that the two physicians did not meet the coverage requirements of the statute so as to alleviate WVUH of ostensible agency liability. The Supreme Court granted extraordinary relief, holding that the circuit court's reading of section 55-7B-9(g) as applied was clear error because it failed to account for W. Va. Code 55-7H-1 to -6, which cannot be reconciled with the circuit court's reading of section 55-7B-9(g). View "State ex rel. W. Va. University Hospitals, Inc. v. Honorable Gaujot" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition for a writ of prohibition, holding that the order was insufficient to permit for appellate review.Respondent brought this action against Petitioner alleging negligent hiring and negligent supervision. Petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment, which the circuit court denied on the grounds that there were genuine issues of material fact to be resolved. Thereafter, Petitioner filed its petition for a writ of prohibition seeking to prohibit enforcement of the court's order denying summary judgment. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that, without a detailed order, this court was unable sufficiently to evaluate whether the lower court committed clear legal error for purposes of granting the requested extraordinary relief. View "State ex rel., ERx, LLC v. Honorable Cramer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint brought by Plaintiff for injuries he sustained in the course and scope of his employment with Defendant, holding that the circuit court erred in denying the motion to dismiss.Plaintiff severely injured his left leg while he was employment at a pipeline construction project and received workers' compensation benefits for his injury. Plaintiff brought this complaint alleging negligence, vicarious liability, and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failing to state a claim on the ground that it was entitled to workers' compensation immunity. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the common law tort claims alleged in Plaintiff's complaint fell within the scope of immunity afforded by West Virginia's Workers' Compensation Act, W. Va. Code 23-2-1 et seq. View "Precision Pipeline, LLC v. Weese" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court concluding that that an insurance policy's "Employer's Liability" exclusion (ELE) was inapplicable to Plaintiff's wrongful death action against Defendant, holding that the circuit court erred.Jeremy Neice was killed in Pennsylvania while working in an underground coal mine owned by Dana Mining Company of Pennsylvania, LLC. The circuit court concluded that Federal Insurance Company owed Dana Mining defense and indemnity pursuant to a liability insurance policy under which Dana Mining was a named assured and that the policy's ELE was inapplicable to the wrongful death action brought by Jenny Neice, the administrator of Jeremy's estate. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Pennsylvania courts would adhere to the majority rule in their interpretation and application of the ELE at issue, finding that it barred coverage for Dana Mining as to Plaintiff's claims. View "Federal Insurance Co. v. Neice" on Justia Law

Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part three orders issued by two separate judges presiding over two separate but related cases in the circuit court, holding that remand was required.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court (1) did not err in denying Praetorian Insurance Company's motion to intervene in Plaintiff's wrongful death action against its insured, Air Cargo Carriers, LLC for lack of standing to assert Air Cargo's right to workers' compensation immunity; (2) erred in denying Praetorian's motion for summary judgment as to count one of its declaratory judgment complaint; and (3) correctly dismissed count two of Praetorian's declaratory judgment complaint on the grounds that Praetorian lacked standing. View "Praetorian Insurance Co. v. Chau" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court denying Defendants' motion to dismiss the claims brought against them on grounds of workers' compensation immunity and immunity under the Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Reform Act, W. Va. Code 29-12A-1, et seq., holding that the circuit court erred.Plaintiff, whose husband died in a workplace accident, sued Defendants, two of her husband's supervisors, claiming that they were liable for his death based on theories of deliberate intent under W. Va. Code 23-4-2-(d)(2)(A) and the tort of intentional and reckless conduct. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims against them, but the circuit court denied the motion, finding that they could be held personally liable. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) workers' compensation immunity insulated Defendants from liability for claims other than for a claim under section 23-4-2(d)(2)(A); and (2) under no set of facts consistent with Plaintiff's allegations could she prove the elements of a claim for heightened deliberate intent. View "Edwards v. Star" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the circuit court erred in its application of "the open and obvious doctrine" but correctly granted summary judgment for Defendants because there was no genuine issue for trial on the issue of negligence.Plaintiff brought this civil complaint for damages arising from injuries he sustained in a fall on Defendants' property. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Defendants on all claims, ruling that Plaintiff's claims were barred by application of W. Va. Code 55-7-28(a), otherwise known as the open and obvious doctrine, and that Plaintiff had failed to produce evidence of negligence on the part of Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court erred in its application of the open and obvious doctrine as a basis for granting summary judgment to Defendants; but (2) summary judgment was proper because none of the evidence produced by Plaintiff in response to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment show that there was a genuine issue for trial on the issue of negligence. View "Butner v. Highlawn Memorial Park Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the portion of the circuit court's order dismissing Plaintiff's claim for negligence against the Logan County Board of Education under W. Va. Code 29-12A-4(c)(2), holding that Plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to permit the inference that the duty and proximate cause elements of a claim for negligence existed.Plaintiff brought this action against the Board alleging that he was severely bullied by his classmates while he was a student at Logan Middle School and that school officials knew of the bullying but maintained that nothing could be done about the problem. The circuit court dismissed Plaintiff's claims under W. Va. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), concluding, as relevant to this appeal, that Plaintiff had not adequately pleaded the duty and causation elements of his negligence claim. The Supreme Court reversed the portion of the circuit court's order dismissing Plaintiff's negligence claim, holding that Plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to permit the inference that the duty and proximate cause elements of a claim for negligence existed. View "Jones v. Logan County Bd. of Education" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court denying a motion for summary judgment filed by Adam Goodman and Paul Underwood (collectively, Petitioners) in this personal injury case arising from an accident in which Blake Auton was injured, holding that the allegations against Petitioners were those of pure negligence, which were barred by workers' compensation immunity.In its order denying summary judgment, the circuit court concluded that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Goodman was action within the scope of his employment while he was driving a garbage truck that backed over Auton and that additional discovery was required relating to Underwood's actions. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded with direction for the circuit court to grant summary judgment to Petitioners, holding (1) Petitioners were both clearly acting in furtherance of their employer's business when the accident occurred; and (2) therefore, workers' compensation immunity barred the cause of action and entitled Petitioners to summary judgment. View "Goodman v. Auton" on Justia Law