Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

This case was before the Supreme Court upon the appeal of Petitioner from an order of the circuit court granting Respondents' motion for summary judgment and dismissing Petitioner's lawsuit. The court ruled that arbitration clauses in Petitioner's investment contracts were not unconscionable and enforceable. Petitioner alleged the circuit court erred in (1) requiring him to prove the arbitration clauses in the paries' agreements were independently enforceable under federal law rather than applying West Virginia law and finding those agreements unenforceable; (2) failing to find the agreements' arbitration clauses independently unenforceable; (3) refusing to find one respondent's deposition testimony an unresponsive and evasive effort to deprive Petitioner of any opportunity to conduct meaningful discovery; and (4) failing to enforce a respondent's offer to repay Petitioner. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court's order lacked the findings of fact and conclusions of law necessary for the Supreme Court to conduct a meaningful appellate review. View "Grayiel v. Appalachian Energy Partners 2001-D, LLP" on Justia Law

The United States court of appeals certified a question to the West Virginia Supreme Court that concerned two areas of state law: the law of contract formation and the doctrine of unconscionability. The question from the court of appeals arose from a contract that contained an arbitration provision requiring one party to the contract to arbitrate all of their claims but allowed the other party to file a lawsuit for some of its claims. A federal district court previously determined that the arbitration provision was not enforceable because it lacked mutuality of obligation and mutuality of consideration. The Supreme Court concluded (1) West Virginia's law of contract formation only required that a contract as a whole be supported by adequate consideration, and hence, a single clause within a multi-clause contract does not require separate consideration when the contract as a whole is supported by adequate consideration; but (2) under the doctrine of unconscionability, a trial court may decline to enforce a contract clause, such as an arbitration provision, if the obligations or rights created by the clause unfairly lack mutuality. View "Dan Ryan Builders, Inc. v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed an order of the West Virginia Workers' Compensation Board of Review through which Petitioner's permanent total disability (PTD) award previously granted was suspended and vacated. Petitioner challenged the Board's determination, upon a reopening of his PTD claim, that he was capable of gainful employment. Petitioner argued that his former employer, Lowe's, violated the statute that authorized the claim reopening because Lowe's was involved in the reevaluation process, and therefore, the order vacating his PTD award was invalid. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that notwithstanding statutory language that suggests otherwise, an order issued by the Board that modifies or vacates a previous award of PTD is not subject to challenge based on the involvement of a self-insured former employer in the reevaluation process, given that the participation of the self-insured former employer is clearly anticipated and authorized by the provisions of W. Va. Cod 23-4-16(d). View "Justice v. W. Va. Office Ins. Comm'n" on Justia Law

This was an appeal by Petitioner from an order of the circuit court accepting the voluntary relinquishment of parental rights by Father to his two eldest children and dismissing his two youngest children from the case. Petitioner was the mother of the two youngest children, who lived in Maryland. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's order, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by (1) accepting Father's voluntary relinquishment of parental rights to two of his children and dismissing two other children without holding a full evidentiary hearing to address the specific allegations of abuse and neglect; (2) failing to grant the motion for the appointment of a separate guardian ad litem for Father's children residing in Maryland; (3) refusing to conduct an in camera hearing with the two oldest children so the children could inform the court about the specific conduct of their father as well as their wishes regarding the termination of their father's parental rights; and (4) dismissing the two children residing in Maryland and failing to hold a hearing regarding the abuse and neglect issues involving those children. Remanded. View "In re T.W." on Justia Law

This case was before the Supreme Court for a second time. Here the case was before the Court on a petition for writ of prohibition brought by Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (MassMutual) seeking to prohibit the circuit court from enforcing its order requiring Roger Crandall, the president, CEO and chairman of Mass Mutual, to submit to deposition. The underlying lawsuits were part of a series of 412i retirement plan cases against multiple defendants, including MassMutual. Respondents alleged fraud and tax fraud in their complaints regarding annuities and pension plans that allegedly subjected Respondents to tax and compliance penalties and other collateral liabilities. In MassMutual I, the Court issued a writ of prohibition prohibiting the circuit court from enforcing its orders that directed Crandall submit to deposition. In the instant appeal, MassMutual argued that the circuit court failed to comply with the Supreme Court's decision in MassMutual I in ordering its president to submit to deposition. The Supreme Court granted the requested writ, holding that the circuit court and Respondents failed to follow the directive of the Court in MassMutual I, and therefore, the court was prohibited from enforcing its order requiring Crandall to submit to deposition. View "State ex rel. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law

Petitioner, New Hampshire Insurance Company, appealed an order of the circuit court granting partial summary judgment in favor of Respondent, RRK, Inc., finding that pursuant to the commercial marine property insurance policy issued by New Hampshire, RRK's barge and the barge's contents were covered property under the policy and that a wear-and-tear exclusion in the policy was invalid. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court correctly found that there was no question of fact regarding whether a renewal policy was mailed to and received by RRK; but (2) the circuit court erred by granting partial summary judgment in favor of RRK because there was a question of fact as to whether, under the doctrine of reasonable expectations, the wear-and-tear exclusion present in the policy mailed to RRK was part of the insurance contract. Remanded. View "N.H. Ins. v. RRK., Inc." on Justia Law

This was an appeal by Petitioner from an order of the circuit court placing Petitioner's grandson, Aaron H., a minor, in the home of his foster parents for the purpose of adoption. Petitioner contended he should have been considered as an adoptive placement for Aaron H. At issue on appeal was whether the circuit court erred in placing the child with his foster parents for adoption rather than with his grandfather in view of the statutory preference for grandparent placement. The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the circuit court and ordered that Aaron H. be placed for adoption in the home of the foster parents, holding that the circuit court did not err in approving the adoption of Aaron H. by his foster parents, as the grandparent placement failed to serve the best interests of the child. View "In re Aaron H." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, the grandchildren of Larry Hose, filed the instant action against Anthony Hose, individually and as administrator of the estate of Larry Hose, alleging that Plaintiffs were sexually and physically abused by Larry Hose, and that the estate of Larry Hose was closed through fraudulent conduct without an accounting for the claim Plaintiffs had against the estate. After the complaint was filed, three other individuals were added as defendants. The circuit court ruled in favor of Plaintiffs on the issue of liability. The circuit court then certified to the Supreme Court the questions asking the Court to determine whether an affidavit was sufficient to give notice of a claim against the estate of Larry Hose and whether the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint filed in this case. The Court found that the affidavit was sufficient in giving notice of a claim against the estate and that the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint. View "Hose v. Estate of Hose" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned the sale of a residence. The buyers, the plaintiffs below, sought compensatory and punitive damages from the sellers regarding water leakage in a basement storage room of the residence the buyers purchased. The leak was disclosed to the buyers after the signing of a purchase agreement and before the closing of the sale. In the complaint, the buyers also asked the circuit court to direct the sellers to proceed with the closing and deliver a deed to the buyers containing covenants of general warranty as specified in the purchase agreement. In granting partial summary judgment to the sellers, the circuit court concluded that the buyers' claims were without merit because they were on notice of the water leak prior to the closing of the sale. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding (1) the sellers were not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law based on the purchase agreement; (2) the refusal of the circuit court to allow discovery constituted reversible error; and (3) the circuit court erred in failing to direct the sellers to deliver a deed to the buyers setting forth the language required by the purchase agreement. View "Hinerman v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

After Petitioner's dog, a Rotweiller mix, attacked Respondents' two-year-old daughter, causing serious injuries, Respondents brought a civil suit under W. Va. Code 19-20-20 against Petitioners requesting that the magistrate court order Petitioners' dog killed, alleging that the dog was vicious, dangerous, or in the habit of biting or attacking other people. The county magistrate court ordered the dog killed. The circuit court affirmed. Petitioners appealed, arguing that section 19-20-20 does not provide a mechanism by which parties may bring a civil suit to have a dog destroyed. The Supreme Court agreed and vacated the circuit court's order, holding that section 19-20-20 does not authorize a civil suit seeking destruction of a dog. View "Durham v. Jenkins" on Justia Law