Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court concluding that that an insurance policy's "Employer's Liability" exclusion (ELE) was inapplicable to Plaintiff's wrongful death action against Defendant, holding that the circuit court erred.Jeremy Neice was killed in Pennsylvania while working in an underground coal mine owned by Dana Mining Company of Pennsylvania, LLC. The circuit court concluded that Federal Insurance Company owed Dana Mining defense and indemnity pursuant to a liability insurance policy under which Dana Mining was a named assured and that the policy's ELE was inapplicable to the wrongful death action brought by Jenny Neice, the administrator of Jeremy's estate. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Pennsylvania courts would adhere to the majority rule in their interpretation and application of the ELE at issue, finding that it barred coverage for Dana Mining as to Plaintiff's claims. View "Federal Insurance Co. v. Neice" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court permanently enjoining the State from implementing the Hope Scholarship Act, W. Va. Code 18-31-1 to -13, after declaring the Act to be unconstitutional, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion.The Act established the Hope Scholarship Program to create education-savings accounts that may only be used for specific educational purposes. Via statute, the Hope Scholarship's funding was "in addition to all other amounts required" to fund public education. Plaintiffs brought this complaint seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and arguing that the Act was unconstitutional. The circuit court ruled that the Act was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Act does not facially violate the "free schools" clause contained in W. Va. Const. art. XII, 1; (2) the Act does not impinge on a child's fundamental right to an education; (3) the Act does not violate W. Va. Const. art. XII, 4-5 or art. X, 5; and (4) the Act does not violate article XII, 2. View "State v. Beaver" on Justia Law

In this abuse and neglect matter, the Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus compelling the circuit court to reunify Daughter with Parents and to remove Kinship Parents' party status in the underlying action, holding that Daughter and Parents had a clear legal right to reunification, and the circuit court had a clear legal duty to order that reunification.Upon filing the underlying petition, the Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) removed Daughter from Father's home and placed her with Kinship Parents. After Parents successfully completed post-adjudicatory improvement periods all parties recommended reunification of the family. The circuit court concluded that the DHHR was required to move for termination of Parents' parental rights under W. Va. Code 49-4-605(a)(1) because Daughter had been in "foster care" for more than fifteen months. The Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus, holding that there was a clear legal right to reunification and a clear legal duty to order that reunification and that there was no other adequate remedy available. View "State ex rel. L.D. v. Honorable Cohee" on Justia Law

Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part three orders issued by two separate judges presiding over two separate but related cases in the circuit court, holding that remand was required.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court (1) did not err in denying Praetorian Insurance Company's motion to intervene in Plaintiff's wrongful death action against its insured, Air Cargo Carriers, LLC for lack of standing to assert Air Cargo's right to workers' compensation immunity; (2) erred in denying Praetorian's motion for summary judgment as to count one of its declaratory judgment complaint; and (3) correctly dismissed count two of Praetorian's declaratory judgment complaint on the grounds that Praetorian lacked standing. View "Praetorian Insurance Co. v. Chau" on Justia Law

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