Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition sought by Petitioner to prohibit certification of a class of individuals who received documents from Petitioner containing language that purportedly violated the West Virginia Consumer Credit Protection Act (WVCCPA), W. Va. Code 46A-2-127(g), holding that the circuit court's order did not sufficiency analyze the predominance and superiority factors of W. Va. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).Respondents, like the class they proposed to represent, purchased a dissatisfactory HVAC unit from Petitioner. Respondents filed a putative class action alleging that the documents used by Petitioner violated the WVCCPA. The circuit court eventually certified a class action. Petitioner then sought a writ of prohibition challenging the class certification on two grounds. The Supreme Court denied the writ of prohibition as to the first ground but granted it as to the second, holding that the circuit court's order was conclusory as to its analysis of the predominance and superiority factors. View "State ex rel., Dodrill Heating & Cooling, LLC v. Honorable Maryclaire Akers" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered a question certified by the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia seeking to clarify the application of the West Virginia Human Rights Act (WVHRA) when the plaintiff's employing entity does not meet the WVHRA definition of "employer," as set out in W. Va. Code 5-11-3(d).Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against her former employer alleging violations of the WVHRA and other claims. Defendant removed the case to federal district court and moved for dismissal of the WVHRA claim on the ground that Plaintiff had failed to allege that Defendant satisfied the numerosity portion of the WVHRA definition of "employer." The district court denied the motion. Thereafter, the court ordered that a question of law be certified. The Supreme Court answered that an entity that does not meet the WVHRA's definition of employer may not be potentially liable to its own employee as a "person," as defined in W. Va. Code 5-11-3(a), for an alleged violation of W. Va. Code 5-11-9(7). View "Pajak v. Under Armour, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the business court's orders in this rent dispute, holding that the business court erred in granting summary judgment to either party.American Bituminous Power Partners, LP (AMBIT) and Horizon Ventures of West Virginia, Inc. created a contractual relationship with a lease agreement. The current rent dispute involved the relationship between the lease, a 1996 settlement agreement, and a 2017 order of the business court. Without resolving the relationship between those documents the business court granted summary judgment to AMBIT on Horizon's claims and summary judgment to Horizon on AMBIT's claims. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that summary judgment was improper because the various agreements were ambiguous and the parties' intent was not clear. View "Horizon Ventures of W. Va., Inc. v. American Bituminous Power Partners, L.P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court to the extent it granted summary judgment to James and Iris Shaffer in this real property dispute, holding that summary judgment was not proper in this case.Robert and Robin Goodwin and the Shaffers owned neighboring properties that were separated by an alley. The Goodwins were the legal owners of the alley. When the Goodwins erected a fence and building that obstructed the Shaffers' use of the alley the Shaffers the Shaffers filed the underlying lawsuit asserting causes of action for prescriptive easement, civil conspiracy, injunctive relief, private nuisance, and trespass. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the Shaffers as to their prescriptive easement claim from 1973 to 1999. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in resolving genuine issues of material fact instead of simply determining whether there was a genuine issue of material fact. View "Goodwin v. Shaffer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the portion of the circuit court's order granting Respondent's motion to dismiss this Petitioners' claims asserting, inter alia, medical negligence, res ipsa loquitur, and loss of consortium, but vacated the court's decision to grant the dismissal with prejudice, holding that the court erred in dismissing the action with prejudice.At issue on appeal was whether Petitioners' failure to serve a screening certificate of merit upon Respondent before filing their complaint warranted a dismissal of Petitioners' complaint with prejudice. The Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to proceed in this case due to Petitioners' failure to comply with the pre-suit notice requirements of the West Virginia Medical Professional Liability Act, W. Va. Code 55-7B-6; and (2) therefore, the circuit court properly dismissed the civil action, but erred in dismissing it with prejudice. View "Tanner v. Raybuck" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Petitioner's petition for expungement, holding that the circuit court did not err in ruling that the petition was barred by res judicata.In 1992, Petitioner was convicted of two counts of malicious assault. In 1996, Petitioner was pardoned. In 1997, his petition for expungement was denied. In 2019, Petitioner filed a second petition for expungement. The circuit court denied the petition, determining that it was barred by res judicata. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court correctly exercised its discretion in denying Petitioner's 1997 petition, and its decision barred the 2019 petition. View "In re Petition of Mario Perito II for Expungement of Record" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court affirming the decision of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) reinstating Respondent's driving privileges, holding that the OAH incorrectly reversed the revocation of Respondent's driving privileges.After Respondent was arrested under suspicion for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, controlled substances, or drugs (DUI) a sample of his blood was drawn for testing. The West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) revoked Respondent's driving privileges. When Respondent appealed, DMV advised that the blood sample had been destroyed without testing. The OAH reversed the revocation, reasoning that the State violated Respondent's due process rights by depriving him of the opportunity to present potentially exculpatory evidence as a result of his blood sample. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) it was error to find that the destruction of Respondent's blood sample violated his right to due process; and (2) reversing Respondent's revocation was error. View "Frazier v. Null" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs - Christine Brehm and Amber Hess - in these suits for declarations of coverage against Progressive Max Insurance Company, holding that the circuit court erred in its grant of summary judgment.Plaintiffs were passengers in a Toyota Camry, a rental vehicle operated by Susan Bindernagel, when another driver crashed into the Camry. Bindernagel's insurer, Progressive, denied underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage because the rental vehicle was not a "covered auto" under the policy. The circuit court found that because Plaintiffs had been Bindernagel's guest passengers in the rental car when the crash occurred they were entitled to UIM coverage. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that neither the clear statutory language nor the terms of the insurance policy specifically provided for UIM coverage to those in Plaintiffs' position. View "Progressive Max Insurance Co. v. Brehm" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed two of Defendant's convictions in this case arising from a fatal drug overdose and remanded the case to the circuit court to resentencing, holding that the convictions violated the constitutional prohibition against putting an individual twice in jeopardy.Defendant was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance (methamphetamine), delivery of a controlled substance (Fentanyl), conspiracy to commit a felony, drug delivery resulting in death, and possession of Fentanyl. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court erred in permitting Defendant to be convicted of both delivery of a controlled substance and delivery of a controlled substance causing death; and (2) there was no error in regard to Defendant's remaining two issues. View "State v. Duke" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment finding as a matter of law that Defendant Antero Resources Corporation breached the parties' contract and granting partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff Directional One Services Inc., USA, holding that the court did not err in its rulings.At issue was the ruling of the circuit court that because two separate documents involved the same parties, the same subject, and were clearly related, then the documents should be construed together as the terms of one contract between the parties. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court in its entirety, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's allegations of error on appeal. View "Antero Resources Corp. v. Directional One Services, Inc., USA" on Justia Law