Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order granting summary judgment against Plaintiffs, lot owners in the Sleepy Creek Forest Subdivision, on their complaint against the Subdivision’s Association alleging that delinquent assessments represented increases in annual assessments that were never properly voted on by the Association. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that the increases were ultra vires with respect to the subdivision’s covenants and restrictions and that the Association’s attempts to collect the delinquent assessments violated the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. The Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court properly granted summary judgment for the Association because the assessment increases were valid; and (2) the circuit court correctly awarded attorney’s fees to the Association. View "Conkey v. Sleepy Creek Forest Owners Association" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court dismissing Petitioners’ civil action as a sanction for alleged discovery violations, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion by imposing the sanction of dismissal.Petitioners bought this civil action against Respondent alleging unfair and deceptive acts, breach of express and implied warranties, breach of contract, and other causes of action. Respondent eventually filed a second motion to dismiss the civil action as a sanction for alleged discovery violations. The circuit court identified ten instances of alleged wrongful conduct by Petitioners and granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, even assuming that there was a discovery violation, the circuit court’s imposition of the extreme sanction of dismissal was an abuse of discretion. View "Smith v. Gebhardt" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying the motion for a new trial Defendants sought after an adverse jury verdict in favor of Plaintiff in this personal injury action.After sustaining injuries in a collision, Plaintiff filed this complaint. The jury found that Defendants were at fault when their police vehicle rear-ended Plaintiff’s vehicle while he was driving. On appeal, Defendants challenged the circuit court’s denial of their motion for new trial or remittitur. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in (1) instructing the jury regarding yielding right-of-way to an emergency vehicle and the standard of care for operating an emergency vehicle; (2) failing to provide Defendants with copies of the juror questionnaires prior to jury voir dire; (3) limiting cross-examination of a witness; and (4) awarding general and special damages. Lastly, Defendants failed to preserve for appellate review their claim that during closing argument Plaintiff’s counsel made a “golden rule” argument in violation of a pretrial ruling by the circuit court. View "Miller v. Allman" on Justia Law

The first of these two consolidated cases involved a lawsuit filed by multiple individual plaintiffs against defendant coal companies alleging that Defendants’ mining activities had contaminated Plaintiffs’ well water with lead and arsenic. The jury returned verdicts for Defendants. During the course of the underlying litigation, Plaintiffs invoked the water replacement provisions of the West Virginia Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Act, W. Va. Code 22-3-1 et seq. The circuit court issued a preliminary injunction requiring Defendants to provide replacement water until liability for the well water contamination had been established. After the jury rendered its verdicts, Defendants requested that the circuit court dissolve the injunction. The circuit court refused to dissolve the injunction while the matter was pending on appeal.The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the circuit court’s ruling refusing Plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the jury verdicts and for a new trial, holding that there was no error requiring reversal; and (2) reversed the circuit court’s ruling refusing to dissolve the preliminary injunction, holding that the injunction should have been dissolved. However, because during the pendency of the instant appeal Defendants failed to comply with the injunction, this case must be remanded for the parties to address that issue. View "Belcher v. Dynamic Energy, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered two certified questions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in this dispute between two insurance companies as follows: (1) The Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges does not have jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action involving a dispute between insurance carriers regarding whether one or both carriers are responsible for contributing toward payment of an employee’s workers’ compensation benefits; and (2) Pursuant to W. Va. Code 33-46A-7(a), parties to a professional employer agreement must designate either the professional employer organization (PEO) or the client-employer as the responsible party for obtaining workers’ compensation insurance coverage for covered employees. Further, when parties to a professional employer agreement designate the PEO as the responsible party for obtaining workers’ compensation insurance coverage for covered employees, the policy obtained by the PEO is primary over a policy obtained by a client-employer. Thus, coverage under a workers’ compensation policy purchased by the client-employer is triggered only if the PEO or its carrier default on their obligation to provide workers’ compensation coverage. View "Brickstreet Mutual Insurance Co. v. Zurich American Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions for felony escape, destruction of property, and petit larceny and the circuit court’s denial of a new trial, holding that the circuit court committed no reversible error. Specifically, the Court held (1) an individual charged with a felony who escapes from lawful confinement as prescribed in W. Va. Code 61-5-10 may be convicted of the offense of felony escape irrespective of the ultimate outcome of the charge for which he or she was in lawful custody or confinement; (2) the trial court did not err in denying Petitioner’s motion for a new trial as to the escape and destruction of property charges on the basis of newly-discovered evidence; and (3) the circuit court did not commit reversible error in permitting the escape and destruction of property charges to be tried first. View "State v. Allman" on Justia Law

The circuit court abused its discretion in not affording Petitioner a hearing to offer a defense, other than not guilty by reason of mental illness, to the merits of the criminal charges against him pursuant to W. Va. Code 27-6A-6.In 2004, Petitioner was charged with two counts of sexual abuse by a parent, guardian or custodian and two counts of second degree sexual assault. In 2008, the circuit court found that Petitioner was not competent to stand trial and that he would have been convicted of the charges against him. The court determined that it would maintain jurisdiction over Petitioner for forty to ninety years or until Petitioner attained competency, whichever occurred first. In 2016, Petitioner filed the instant motion for a hearing to offer a defense to the merits of the charges brought against him. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the matter for a hearing, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the circuit court erred in denying Petitioner’s request for a hearing to present evidence of a defense to the charges in the criminal indictment against him. View "State v. King" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Petitioner’s convictions for four felony counts of driving under the influence (DUI) causing death, two felony counts of child neglect resulting in death, and three misdemeanors, holding that the trial court’s comments at the beginning of the jury selection process tainted Petitioner’s presumption of innocence and deprived him of a fair trial.In this case involving multiple casualties, the trial court informed the jury pool that Petitioner decided to plead guilty and that he “probably did everyone a favor by doing the plea. It was a pretty tragic case.” The court later repeated this sentiment. The Supreme Court held that the trial court expressed its opinion on a material matter at trial - that of Petitioner’s guilt - and once Petitioner decided to reject the plea deal and proceed to trial, this jury pool was irrevocably tainted with the knowledge that Petitioner was willing to plead guilty in this case. View "State v. Thompson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the sentencing order of the circuit court imposing an effective sentence of sixteen to thirty-eight years and denying Petitioner’s request for credit for time served on home incarceration as a condition of pretrial bail on the basis that Petitioner benefited from his plea bargain with the State.Petitioner pleaded guilty to sexual abuse by a parent, incest, and attempt to commit a felony. Petitioner appealed his sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) in accordance with State v. Hughes, 476 S.E.2d 189 (1996), the circuit court properly refused to grant Petitioner credit for time served on home incarceration; and (2) Petitioner’s argument that his sentence was disproportionate to the nature of the offense because he was denied credit for time served on home incarceration was without merit. View "State v. Jedediah C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court affirming a decision of the Board of Review of Workforce West Virginia that granted twenty-five Verizon employees ("claimants") unemployment compensation benefits for a period of time during which they were on strike. The Court held that that claimants were disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits under W. Va. Code 21A-6-3(4) because (1) the phrase “factory, establishment or other premises at which he or she was last employed” in section 21A-6-3(4) means the distinct geographical location where the claimant was last employed prior to the labor dispute; (2) the lower tribunals erred in the instant case by considering Verizon’s nationwide operations to determine whether a “work stoppage” occurred during the strike at issue; and (3) a “work stoppage” occurred at Verizon’s Clarksburg facility during the labor dispute, which disqualified the claimants for benefits under the statute. View "Verizon Services Corp. v. Board of Review of Workforce West Virginia" on Justia Law