Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff Diana Mey filed a class action complaint alleging that Defendants, several companies, violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by leaving an automated voicemail message at her residence in response to a classified advertisement that Plaintiff's son placed on an internet website. The circuit court ruled that the automated call placed in response to the advertisement did not violate the TCPA and granted Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) applied the correct standard of review when assessing a W.V. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss; (2) properly ruled that the automated call was not a telephone solicitation and did not contain an unsolicited advertisement under the TCPA; (3) did not abuse its discretion by denying Plaintiff's motion for relief pursuant to W.V. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b) after being informed that the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) issued a citation against Defendants; and (4) did not err in concluding that Defendants were not required to obtain Plaintiff's prior express consent before responding to the classified advertisement. View "Mey v. Pep Boys" on Justia Law

The executor of the estates of a family who were killed in an accident filed a wrongful death action against an individual and trucking company. The trucking company was bankrupt, but insurance coverage for the accident was available through a policy issued to the company by Converium. Converium subsequently entered into an agreement with National Indemnity Company, which agreed to purchase all or certain portions of Converium. No representation of National Indemnity appeared at the court-ordered mediation. National Indemnity's vice president and legal counsel, Joseph Casaccio, failed to appear at the second mediation but appeared at the third mediation. The case was eventually settled. The circuit court subsequently imposed monetary sanctions against Petitioners, National Indemnity and Casaccio, for failing, without good cause, to appear at the mediation. The Supreme Court reversed the order imposing sanctions, holding (1) W.V. Trial Ct. R. 25.10 did authorize a trial court to sanction Petitioners, but (2) no sanctionable conduct occurred in this case. View "Casaccio v. Curtiss" on Justia Law

In three cases consolidated for review, the facts were similar. A person was admitted to a nursing home, and a family member signed an admission agreement containing an arbitration clause. After the person died, a family member filed suit against the nursing home, alleging the nursing home negligently caused injuries leading to the person's death. The nursing home sought to dismiss the lawsuit and compel the family member to participate in binding arbitration. The family members asserted the arbitration clauses were unenforceable, alleging (1) the clauses violated the West Virginia Nursing Home Act, and (2) were unconscionable under the common law. After reviewing the relevant laws, the Supreme Court held that (1) the Nursing Home Act, which states any that waiver by a nursing home resident of his right to sue for injuries sustained in a nursing home shall be void as contrary to public policy, is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act; and (2) in the context of pre-injury nursing home admission agreements, where a personal injury or wrongful death occurred after the signing of the contract, arbitration clauses are unenforceable to compel arbitration of a dispute concerning negligence that results in a personal injury or wrongful death. View "Brown v. Genesis Healthcare Corp." on Justia Law

In two consolidated original jurisdiction actions, petitioners Mylan, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Mylan Technologies, Inc. sought writs of prohibition in two actions pending in the circuit court of Kanawha County. In each action, the circuit court denied a motion filed by petitioners to dismiss the case on the basis of forum non conveniens. Petitioners filed a petition for a writ of prohibition, asserting that each of the circuit judges erred in applying the forum non conveniens statute, W. Va. Code 56-1-1a, and seeking to prohibit the circuit court from refusing to dismiss their actions. In a show cause order, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court erred in failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the eight factors listed for consideration in Section 56-1-1a. The Court, therefore, granted the writs and remanded the actions. View "State ex rel. Mylan, Inc. v. Zakaib" on Justia Law

Appellant Charter Communications and appellee Community Antenna, a smaller company, were competing cable services providers. For over a decade the parties had been litigating the issue of whether Charter was offering discounted rates to some but not all of its customers in violation of the West Virginia Cable Television Systems Act (Act) that prohibits unduly discriminatory rates for over a decade. On the parties' third time before the Supreme Court, at issue was a counterclaim filed by Community Antenna in the underlying lawsuit alleging that Charter was engaged in rate discrimination calculated to harm Community Antenna's business. The trial court concluded that Charter's buy-back plans constituted unduly discriminatory rates in violation of state law and that Charter tortiously interfered with Community Antenna's business relationships with its customers. The jury awarded Community Antenna compensatory and punitive damages. Charter appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there is a private cause of action under the Act against cable operators that illegally offer unduly discriminatory cable rates, (2) there was sufficient evidence that Charter's conduct was the proximate cause of harm to Community Antenna, and (3) the jury's award of damages was supported by the evidence. View "Cmty. Antenna Servs., Inc. v. Charter Commc'ns VI, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant Elizabeth Thornton was sentenced in circuit court to three to fifteen years in the state penitentiary for her conviction of child neglect resulting in death. Appellant appealed, arguing that (1) the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant's delay in seeking medical treatment for her child caused his death, and (2) the circuit court erred in denying her motions for mistrial after the state allegedly violated the trial court's admonition to not reference child protective services proceedings or actions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the jury verdict was supported by sufficient evidence, and (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by not granting the appellant's motion for mistrial upon the mere mention of child protective services before the jury. View "State v. Thornton" on Justia Law

Appellant David Kaufman was convicted of first degree murder in the circuit court. On appeal, appellant argued that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence the victim's diary and certain statements by the victim to others, both of which recounted alleged threats and acts of violence by appellant towards the victim during the weeks preceding her death. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that (1) the trial court's admission of the entire diary without an analysis of each declaration and remark from the diary was an abuse of discretion because when ruling upon the admission of a narrative under the hearsay rule of evidence, a trial court must break down the narrative and determine the separate admissibility of each single declaration or remark; and (2) the trial court committed error in admitting certain statements by the victim without setting forth any reasoning in support of its ruling that the victim's statements were admissible under State v. Sutphin. Remanded. View "State v. Kaufman" on Justia Law

In a medical professional liability action, the jury returned a verdict in favor of appellants James and Debbie MacDonald, which included an award of $1,500,000 for noneconomic loss. In accordance with W. Va. Code 55-7B-8, the circuit court reduced the noneconomic damages award to $500,000, finding that James suffered a permanent and substantial physical deformity warranting application of the higher cap amount. On appeal, the MacDonalds argued that the cap contained in the statute was unconstitutional, and therefore, the circuit court erred in reducing the jury's verdict. Appellees, Sayeed Ahmed, M.D. and City Hospital, asserted a cross-assignment of error, arguing that the $250,000 cap should have been applied in this case. City Hosptial also cross assigned as error the circuit court's denial of its motion for summary judgment, motion for judgment as a matter of law, and motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the statute as amended in 2003 was constitutional, (2) the circuit court did not err in applying the higher cap, and (3) the circuit court did not err in denying the motions filed by City Hospital. View "MacDonald v. City Hospital, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner Jefferson Utilities, Inc. (JUI), a privately-held public utility authorized to provide water service to several areas of Jefferson County, filed a request with the Public Service Commission of West Virginia for a rate increase of approximately 72.2 percent. The ALJ recommended a rate increase of 22.4 percent, and the Commission reduced the rate increase recommended by the ALJ to 4.4 percent. JUI appealed, contending that the Commission erred by rejecting the recommended decision of the ALJ regarding the rate increase. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that although the evidence in this case was controverted, it was clear that the Commission's decision was not arbitrary, did not result from a misapplication of legal principles, and was supported by substantial evidence in the record. View "Jefferson Utils., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of W. Va." on Justia Law

Appellant Carroll Humphries, a convicted felon, filed a writ of habeas corpus with the Supreme Court after his conviction. The Court reversed and remanded the case due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Upon remand, appellant pleaded nolo contendere to the crime of accessory before the fact to murder, and appellant was found guilty. Later, appellant instituted a legal malpractice action against his attorney, Paul Detch. Detch filed a motion to dismiss, which the circuit court granted. Appellant appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) in a suit against an attorney for negligence, the plaintiff must prove the attorney's employment, the attorney's neglect of a reasonable duty, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of loss to the plaintiff; (2) to state a cause of action for legal malpractice arising during a criminal proceeding, a plaintiff must establish that he is actually innocent of the underlying criminal offense; and (3) the rules of evidence in this case did not prohibit the conviction and sentence that resulted from the nolo contendere plea from being admitted as evidence in the legal malpractice action to prove the plaintiff was convicted of the crime that was the subject of the nolo contedere plea. View "Humphries v. Detch" on Justia Law