Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of sexual abuse by a parent, guardian, custodian or person in a position of trust to a child and sentenced to twenty years in the penitentiary. Two years later, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction habeas corpus relief, arguing that his former defense counsel was ineffective for failing to submit proper jury instructions on whether Petitioner was a “person in a position of trust” as to the victim and whether the victim was under Petitioner’s “care, custody, or control” at the time of the sexual encounter. The circuit court granted Petitioner’s petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the failure to offer the instructions did not constitute deficient performance by counsel. View "Ballard v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs requested from the Acting Tax Commissioner a copy of the Computer-Assisted Mass Appraisal (CAMA) files for all real property in the state. The Tax Commissioner denied the request for the CAMA files, claiming that it was not custodian of the files. Plaintiffs filed an action seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the Commissioner and the Kanawha County Assessor (Respondents), concluding that the CAMA files were exempt from production under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Commissioner was the custodian of the subject files; and (2) the circuit court erred in determining that the CAMA files were categorically exempt from disclosure under FOIA’s exemption for information of a personal nature. Remanded for submission of a Vaughn index and further findings. View "Hurlbert v. Matkovich" on Justia Law

Petitioners in these combined cases were former public employees who filed actions in the circuit court alleging violations of the West Virginia Human Rights Act (WVHRA). The circuit courts dismissed the complaints for Petitioners' failures to exhaust their administrative remedies, concluding that the exhaustion of administrative remedies available pursuant to the West Virginia Public Employees Grievance Procedure was a necessary precondition to the filing of a circuit court action. The Supreme Court reversed the rulings of the circuit courts, holding (1) a public employee, whose employment confers grievance rights before the West Virginia Public Employees Grievance Board, is not required to exhaust the administrative Grievance Procedure before initiating a complaint in the circuit court alleging violations of the WVHRA; and (2) the commencement of the Grievance Procedure does not preclude the institution of a circuit court action prior to exhaustion of the Grievance Procedure. Remanded.View "Weimer v. Sanders" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was seriously injured in a car accident caused by Defendant. Plaintiff incurred medical bills in excess of $70,000, a portion of which was discounted. Plaintiff sought to recover the entire amount of his medical bills as his necessary and reasonable expenses. Defendant filed a motion in limine asserting that Plaintiff’s damages should be limited to the amounts actually paid by Plaintiff and the amounts paid on Plaintiff’s behalf by any collateral source, such as Plaintiff’s health insurance provider. The circuit court denied Defendant’s motion, reasoning that the discounts or write-offs were a collateral source to Plaintiff. After a trial, the jury awarded Plaintiff compensatory damages of more than $3 million, which included $74,061 for Plaintiff’s past medical expenses, and returned a punitive damage verdict for $300,000. The Supreme Court affirmed the jury’s award of compensatory and punitive damages, holding (1) the trial court did not err in applying the collateral source rule to exclude evidence of Plaintiff’s discounted medical bills; and (2) there was no error underlying the jury’s punitive damage verdict. View "Kenney v. Liston" on Justia Law

Paul Lightner filed a consumer complaint on behalf of himself and other policyholders before the Insurance Commissioner against CitiFinancial and Triton Insurance Company challenging the rates for certain insurance products. Following the Commissioner’s investigation and consideration of Lightner’s complaint, the Commissioner denied Lightner’s request for a hearing and found the challenged rates were reasonable. Lightner filed a petition appealing the Commissioner’s order denying his request for a hearing. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in upholding the Commissioner’s order denying a hearing because this case did not present any factual disputes warranting a hearing in this case; and (2) properly concluded that the Commissioner’s handling of the rate issues raised in Lightner’s complaint met statutory, regulatory, and constitutional standards. View "Lightner v. Riley" on Justia Law

Insurer issued a commercial general liability insurance policy to Nightclub. After an altercation resulted in three Nightclub patrons receiving gunshot wounds, one of the injured patrons notified Nightclub that he intended to sue. Insurer subsequently filed a declaratory judgment action to determine coverage. The circuit court granted declaratory judgment to Insurer. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court erred in finding that the policy permitted Insurer to terminate its duty to defend once the policy limits were exhausted through the expenditure of attorney’s fees and costs related to the defense of the underlying tort actions; and (2) the circuit court did not err in ruling that the “Limited Assault and Battery Coverage” endorsement to the policy applied to the facts of this case and that coverage for the alleged injuries and damages was limited to $25,000. Remanded. View "Flowers v. Max Specialty Ins. Co." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of conspiracy and two counts of delivery of crack cocaine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err by (1) denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized by the police from the residence where Defendant was staying at the time of his arrest; (2) summarily rejecting a plea agreement that Defendant reached with the State on the second day of his trial, as the plea agreement had not yet been finalized; and (3) admitting W. Va. R. Evid. 404(b) evidence. View "State v. Dorsey" on Justia Law

Four days before their wedding, Husband and Wife executed a prenuptial agreement. Wife later filed for divorce, and Husband requested enforcement of the prenuptial agreement. The family court invalidated the prenuptial agreement on the grounds that Wife did not enter into the agreement with full knowledge of the contents of the agreement and its legal effect. The family court ultimately divided the parties’ marital estate equally. The circuit court largely affirmed. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the portion of the circuit court’s order that ruled that the prenuptial agreement was unenforceable; but (2) reversed the portion of the circuit court’s order related to the equitable distribution of the parties’ marital estate. Remanded. View "Owen v. Owen" on Justia Law

Steven Malay was indicted by a grand jury on multiple counts of sexual abuse by a parent, guardian, custodian or person in position of trust in violation of W. Va. Code 61-8D-5, among other sexual offenses. Malay moved to dismiss the eight counts charging him with violating section 61-8D-5 on the grounds that his employment as a school bus driver did not cause him to qualify as a custodian or person of trust under the statute, and even if it did, the acts were not committed while he was serving in that capacity. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to six counts. The State sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the circuit court from enforcing its order. The Supreme Court granted the requested writ, holding that the question of whether a person charged with a crime under section 61-8D-5 is a custodian or a person in a position of trust in relation to a child is a question of fact for the jury to determine, and therefore, the circuit court exceeded its authority in dismissing the six counts. Remanded. View "State ex rel. Harris v. Judge Hatcher" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed an action individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated against Respondents, Charleston Area Medical Center (CAMC) and CAMC Health Education and Research Institute, asserting causes of action for breach of duty of confidentiality, invasion of privacy, and negligence for placing Plaintiffs’ personal and medical information on a specific CAMC electronic database and website that was accessible to the public. The circuit court denied class certification, finding that Plaintiffs did not meet the prerequisites for class certification and that Plaintiffs lacked standing to sue Respondents. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in finding that Petitioners lacked standing and abused its discretion in ruling that Petitioners failed to meet the requirements for class certification. Remanded. View "Tabata v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr." on Justia Law