Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition preventing the Honorable Christopher McCarthy, Judge of the Circuit Court of Harrison County, from enforcing an order granting Plaintiffs' motion to compel, holding that the circuit court erred by failing to determine the applicability of the attorney-client privilege to the information sought by Plaintiffs.The order granting Plaintiffs' motion to compel required an attorney employed by Defendant to appear at a deposition and respond to questions that Defendant claimed were subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. The Supreme Court granted the requested writ of prohibition, holding that determining the applicability of the attorney-client privilege to the information sought by Plaintiffs during the deposition was a required first step in analyzing whether to grant Plaintiffs' motion to compel. View "State ex rel. Antero Resources Corp. v. Honorable McCarthy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered a certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concerning the amount of motor vehicle liability insurance coverage, if any, that Insurer must provide to a non-employee permissive user of an insured vehicle who caused personal injuries to an employee of a named insured under a standard commercial automobile insurance policy.The Fourth Circuit determined that an employee indemnification and employer's liability's exclusion in the policy at issue was void and unenforceable under the mandatory omnibus requirements of W. Va. Code 33-6-31(a). The Supreme Court answered (1) the void exclusion may not be invoked to limit the amount of coverage available to a permissive user of a vehicle insured by Insurer's policy; and (2) Insurer must afford the permissive user with liability coverage up to the full limits available under the insurance policy for any proven damages. View "Ball v. United Financial Casualty Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the dispositional order of the circuit court terminating Father's parental rights to his minor children under W. Va. Code 49-4-604(c)(6) due to aggravated circumstances, holding that the dispositional order was insufficient to permit a meaningful review of the proceedings below.The circuit court conducted an adjudicatory hearing and found by clear and convincing evidence that Father had abused the two children. The circuit court terminated Petitioner's parental rights at the conclusion of the hearing. The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's dispositional order and remanded the case with directions, holding that the order did not contain the requisite findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with W. Va. Code 49-4-604 and Rule 36(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings. View "In re E.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition sought by the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources and others (collectively, DHHR) to prohibit the Honorable Louis Bloom, Judge of the Circuit Court of Kanawah County, from enforcing mandamus orders he issued against DHHR, holding that DHHR was entitled to a writ of prohibition.The circuit court established the underlying mandamus proceeding initiated by two Kanawha County Guardians ad Litem (the GALs) to compel the DHHR to address and remedy issues of employee staffing and training in the Kanawha County Child Protective Services Division Office. The circuit court subsequently granted the GALs' request to expand the scope of the initial writ of mandamus and added issues concerning statewide staff and child housing over the DHHR's objections. The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition, holding that the circuit court exceeded the scope of its agreed-upon order by impermissibly expanding the scope of the mandamus proceeding. View "State ex rel., W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Resources v. Honorable Bloom" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered three questions certified by the Circuit Court of Monongalia County seeking clarification as to the application of the "hit-and-run statute," W. Va. Code 17C-4-1, pertaining to vehicle crashes concerning death or personal injuries and the obligations and duties of an individual involved in the crash as set forth in this opinion.Specifically, the Court answered (1) the Legislature's 2010 amendment of section 17C-4-1 did not create ambiguity in the statute; (2) to be criminally responsible for a violation of subsections 17C-4-1(a) and (d), a defendant's vehicle need not have made direct physical contact with the other vehicle or person whose death was proximately caused by the crash; and (3) the determination of whether a defendant was "involved in a crash" for purposes of subsections 17C-4-1(a) and (d) is a question of fact. View "State v. McClain" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction on the charge of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person under W. Va. Code 61-7-7(a)(3), holding that Defendant's argument that the statute was so ambiguous that it was unconstitutionally vague on its face could not succeed.Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to violating section 61-7-7(a)(3), which makes it unlawful for any person who is "an unlawful user of...any controlled substance" to possess a firearm. On appeal, Defendant argued that the statute was unconstitutionally vague on its face because it does not define "unlawful user" of a controlled substance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Defendant did not argue or show that section 61-7-7(a)(3) was unconstitutionally vague as applied to his conduct of possessing a firearm while regularly using marijuana, he lacked standing to assert the claim that the statute was unconstitutionally vague on its face. View "State v. Wilfong" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company's decision to rescind an insurance policy purchased for a derelict house Homeowner intended to remodel, holding that questions of material fact existed precluding summary judgment.After a fire occurred, damaging the house and some of its contents, Allstate announced that it was rescinding the homeowners' insurance policy issued to Homeowner, asserting that Homeowner digitally signed an application in which he falsely answered a request as to whether he would occupy the house within thirty days. Plaintiffs, including Homeowner, sued Allstate for breach of contract and unfair trade practices. The circuit court granted Allstate's motion to rescind the policy, concluding that there was no factual dispute that Homeowner had made false statements on his insurance application. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that questions of material fact existed regarding whether Plaintiff's answer to Allstate's thirty-day-occupancy question was false and whether the question was material to Allstate's issuance of the policy. View "McDowell v. Allstate Vehicle & Property Insurance Co." 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 affirmed Defendant's conviction for unlawfully, knowingly, and willfully sending or causing to be sent and/or possessing material depicting minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of W. Va. Code 61-8C-3(a), holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court did not err by (1) excluding expert testimony regarding the impact of Defendant's Autism Spectrum Disorder and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder; (2) denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the superseding indictment or disqualify the prosecutor’s office; (3) determining that Defendant's recorded statement to law enforcement was voluntary; and (4) allowing testimony from the State's digital forensic computer analyst. View "State v. Delorenzo" 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