Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In 2003, the Division of Highways (DOH) let out a public highway construction contract to Nicewonder Contracting. The Affiliated Construction Trades Foundation (ACT) filed a declaratory judgment action against the DOH and Nicewonder, alleging that the construction contract violated state and federal law because the DOH did not seek public bids for the project and there was no prevailing wage clause in the contract. Upon remand from the district court, the circuit court granted Nicewonder's motion for summary judgment, finding ACT lacked standing. The Supreme court reversed, holding that the appropriate standard to determine if an organization has representative standing to sue on behalf of its members is when the organization proves that (1) at least one of its members would have standing to sue in their own right; (2) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose; and (3) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit. The Court found that ACT met all three prongs and thus had representative standing to seek the declarations contained in its petition. View "Affiliated Constr. Trades v. W. Va. Dep't of Transp." on Justia Law

When appellant Tevya W. (mother) and appellee Elias V. (father) divorced in 2003, an approved shared parenting plan provided that their son Elias was to reside primarily with his mother. In 2005, the family court transferred full custody of Elias to the father due to the mother's drug usage. In 2006, the mother filed a petition to regain primary custody of Elias. The family court found insufficient evidence to support a change of the custody arrangements. The mother subsequently filed two more petitions to alter custody arrangements, the second of which resulted in an order altering weekend custody, and the third of which resulted in no change to the custody arrangement. The mother appealed the third order, and the circuit court affirmed. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the record supported a finding that Elias's current residential placement was in Elias's best interests and holding that there was no abuse of discretion in the conclusions of the family court and circuit court. View "Tevya W. v. Elias V." on Justia Law

Elgene Phillips was driving his truck when the truck hydroplaned, ran off the road, and rolled over. Phillips died as a result of the accident. As administratrix of the decedent's estate, petitioner Shelia Haynes filed a wrongful death action, alleging that the seatbelt in the decedent's trunk was defective. Chrysler, the manufacturer of the decedent's truck, and Autoliv, the manufacturer of the seatbelt, were named as defendants. The parties settled for $150,000, but the agreement did not contain an apportionment between the two defendants regarding who was responsible for that amount. After Chrysler declared bankruptcy, petitioner filed a motion to sever claims against Chrysler and a motion to compel Autoliv to pay the entire amount of the settlement. The circuit court denied petitioner's motions, and as a result petitioner received only $65,000 in settlement proceeds. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that (1) the terms of the contract were unambiguous, and Autolive was bound by the underlying agreement; and (2) by cashing Autolive's check for $65,000, the petitioner and Autolive did not reach an accord and satisfaction under the facts of the case. View "Haynes v. DaimlerChrysler Corp." on Justia Law

Randy Mace, as personal representative of the estate of Kathy Mace, appealed from an order of the circuit court dismissing his wrongful death lawsuit on the basis of forum non conveniens. Applying the forum non conveniens statute, the circuit court concluded that North Carolina, the state in which the action accrued, was a more convenient forum for Mace's claims. Mace argued, however, that he was unable to try his claims in North Carolina because they were barred by that state's statute of limitations. Thus, he argued, the circuit court erred in dismissing the case because it misinterpreted the forum non conveniens statute as permitting dismissal despite the lack of an alternate forum in which the claims may be tried. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded. Finding the language of the statute ambiguous, the Court construed the statute in a manner consistent with the Court's prior case law and the federal common law doctrine of forum non conveniens. Under this construction, the circuit court erred in its interpretation of the statute. View "Mace v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner power companies sought a writ of prohibition in connection with a ruling of the circuit court denying petitioners' motion to dismiss a breach of contract complaint filed against them by respondents, Shell Equipment and Shell Energy, as being barred by the statute of limitations. Petitioners argued that the trial court erred in ruling that the limitations period applicable to contracts for the sale of goods under the UCC does not apply to the coal sales agreement they entered into with Shell Equipment. The Supreme Court granted the writ of prohibition, finding that petitioners demonstrated clear legal error for which they were entitled to relief. The Court determined that the subject agreement constituted a sale of goods under W.V. Code 46-2-107(1), and, as a result, the four-year statute of limitations established by the UCC for the sales of goods was controlling. Because respondents did not initiate the lawsuit until after the limitations period had expired, the trial court committed error in failing to grant petitioners' motion to dismiss. View "SER Monongahela Power, et al. v. Circuit Court of Marion County, et al." on Justia Law

In 2010, the circuit court terminated the custodial and visitation rights of a mother to her four children but did not terminate her parental rights to the children. The Department of Health and Human Resources and the children's guardian ad litem appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred when it failed to terminate all parental rights of the mother. The Supreme Court concluded that the facts as developed demonstrated no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of neglect or abuse could be substantially corrected in the near future and that the circuit court's order deprived the children of the permanency they need. In light of the children's best interests, the Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court. View "In re Kristin Y., et al." on Justia Law

When he was less than two years old, Hunter H. was placed with foster parents after the Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) discovered his parents were using crack cocaine. After residing with the foster parents for three years, the DHHR sought to permanently place Hunter with his grandmother. The circuit court placed Hunter with his grandmother. The foster parents and guardian ad litem appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court's order placing Hunter with his grandmother was clearly erroneous because it elevated the statutory preference for grandparent adoption over the best interests of the child. The Court concluded that because the foster family had created a stable, loving environment for Hunter in which he was growing and thriving for three years, it was in Hunter's best interests to be permanently placed with his foster parents. View "In re Hunter H." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs William and Connie Huston sought to enforce the terms of a global class action settlement agreement in the circuit court when defendants Mercedes-Benz and Smith Motor Cars allegedly refused to repair the plaintiffs' sports utility vehicle in accordance with the settlement agreement. The defendants moved to dismiss, claiming that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the Hustons' claims. The circuit court certified to the Supreme Court the question of the circuit court's authority to adjudicate the plaintiffs' lawsuit against the defendants. The Supreme Court concluded that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs' lawsuit because continuing jurisdiction over the settlement agreement had been retained by the federal district court where the global class action settlement agreement was originally reached. As such, the plaintiffs could not properly maintain their suit against the defendants in the circuit court. View "Huston, et al. v. Mercedes-Benz USA, L.L.C., et al." on Justia Law

Appellants William and Denise Huggins filed a lawsuit against appellees sewer board, city, and mayor, alleging that a violation of the Workers' Compensation Act had occurred when Huggins' health insurance was terminated while he was off of work recovering from a compensable work-related injury, and, further, that he had been wrongfully terminated. The appellees filed a motion for summary judgment with the lower court, alleging that the plaintiffs had no basis in law for their complaint. The circuit court granted the motion, and the appellants appealed. At issue was whether Huggins was terminated while off work and receiving temporary total disability benefits due to his compensable injury, or, instead, whether Huggins resigned from employment. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that appellees terminated Huggins in violation of the anti-discrimination policies set forth in the Act. However, the circuit court's determination that Huggins was not entitled to punitive damages against the mayor was affirmed. View "Huggins, et al. v. City of Westover Sanitary Sewer Board" on Justia Law

Janet Hornbeck appealed an order of the circuit court, arguing that the court erred by affirming the family court's ruling that the Bureau of Child Support Enforcement (BCSE) method of distributing child support arrearage payments between principal and interest is appropriate even though it deviates from the way those allocations are generally made for court-ordered money judgments not involving support. At issue was the validity of a procedure established and followed by an administrative agency. After concluding the procedure to be an interpretive rule under the APA, the Supreme Court held that the BCSE rule is within the authority granted the agency in W. Va. Code 48-11-105. Affirmed. View "Hornbeck v. Caplinger, et al." on Justia Law