Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Lexon Insurance Company (“Lexon”) issued two performance bonds to DLM, LLC. Both bonds named Berkeley County as the obligee. DLM later defaulted under both bonds. Berkeley County filed this action against Lexon and DLM, seeking “specific performance of the Surety’s obligations according to the terms of the subject bonds” in addition to its costs and expenses. Berkeley County subsequently filed a motion for default judgment, pursuant to W. Va. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1), against Lexon. The circuit court entered default judgment against Lexon for the total face value of the two bonds at issue, plus post judgment interest. The circuit court denied Lexon’s motion to set aside default judgment. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s order denying Lexon’s motion to set aside default judgment, holding (1) because the damages sought in this case were not a “sum certain” as required by Rule 55(b)(1), default judgment was improperly granted under that rule; and (2) default judgment was improperly entered under the unique circumstances of this case where the parties failed to follow the Rules of Civil Procedure pertaining to the extension of the time for filing an answer. View "Lexon Ins. v. County Council of Berkeley County" on Justia Law

An abuse and neglect petition was filed against Mother regarding her two children. Mother stipulated to allegations of abuse and neglect. The circuit court subsequently granted a post-adjudicatory improvement period for Mother. The circuit court later terminated Mother’s parental rights to her children. Mother appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in finding that she left an addiction recovery center early, had not made sufficient progress toward reunification with her children, and had not substantially complied with the family case plan. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that termination of Mother’s parental rights was not warranted in this case, as the circuit court’s findings supporting termination were clearly erroneous. View "In re C.M." on Justia Law

The decedents in this case were long distance drivers for Werner Enterprises. When the tractor-trailer they were driving as a team hit a guardrail and overturned, the tractor-trailer caught on fire, killing the decedents. Werner later disposed of the remains of the tractor-trailer. Plaintiffs, the family of the decedents, filed this lawsuit asserting, among other claims, product liability claims against the manufacturer of the tractor-trailer, Freightliner Corporation, Inc. Plaintiffs alleged alleged that Werner had either negligently or intentionally spoliated evidence, including the tractor-trailer. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Werner, thus dismissing all of Plaintiffs’ claims except the claim concerning whether Werner intentionally spoliated evidence when it disposed of the tractor-trailer. The circuit court eventually entered summary judgment on this claim, concluding that there was no question of material fact as to whether Werner had knowledge of Plaintiffs’ potential civil action when it disposed of the tractor-trailer. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court was correct in granting summary judgment. View "Williams v. Werner Enters., Inc." on Justia Law

The Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles entered an order that administratively revoked Respondent’s driver’s license for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (DUI). The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) reversed the revocation order, concluding that there was insufficient evidence that Respondent was driving while intoxicated and that he was lawfully arrested for DUI. The circuit court affirmed the OAH. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the matter for reinstatement of the Commissioner’s revocation order, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to establish probable cause to arrest Respondent for DUI; and (2) the license revocation in this case was proper. View "Reed v. Hill" on Justia Law

A student-athlete was ejected from a high school football game for allegedly committing a flagrant personal foul. Because the West Virginia Secondary School Activities Commission (SSAC) does not allow participation in the game following an ejection, the student-athlete was suspended from playing in the next game. The SSAC refused to review the student-athlete’s administrative appeal, instead invoking its non-review of ejections rule. The student-athlete sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction from the circuit court, arguing that the SSAC’s non-review of ejections rule violated the Legislature's requirement that the SSAC provide a “proper review procedure.” The circuit court enjoined the SSAC from enforcing its penalty against the student-athlete, finding that that the SSAC violated the Legislature’s requirement that the SSAC provide a proper review procedure. The SSAC sought a writ of prohibition to halt enforcement of the circuit court’s order. The Supreme Court denied the requested writ, holding that the SSAC’s non-review of ejections rule violates the Legislature’s requirement that the SSAC provide a proper review procedure. View "State ex rel. W. Va. Secondary Sch. Activities Comm’n v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law

Respondent filed a complaint against Petitioners alleging that Petitioners placed certain impediments and obstructions within a twenty-foot right-of-way that existed over a paved roadway that provided deeded access to Respondent’s property. Respondent sought a permanent injunction against the placement of impediments in the right-of-way. The circuit court permanently enjoined Petitioners from placing any impediments or obstructions within the right-of-way. The court also concluded that Respondent had a prescriptive easement for the location of his water line through Petitioner’s property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in granting injunctive relief to Respondent prohibiting Petitioner from placing obstructions in Respondent’s easement and concluded that the current location of Respondent’s water line was an appurtenant prescriptive easement through Petitioners’ property. View "Weatherholt v. Weatherholt" on Justia Law

Patricia Powell filed this medical malpractice action against Dr. Todd Tallman, alleging that Dr. Tallman was medically negligent in causing the death of her spouse. During discovery, Powell moved to exclude from trial the opinions that were set out in a supplemental expert witness disclosure submitted by Dr. Tallman, alleging that the disclosure was made to Powell’s counsel a significant time after the deadline for making such disclosures. The trial court granted the motion. Dr. Tallman then invoked the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction seeking a writ of prohibition to prevent enforcement of the circuit court’s order. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the circuit court committed error as a matter of law in precluding Dr. Tallman’s experts from presenting their additional opinions at trial. View "State ex re. Tallman v. Hon. Susan B. Tucker" on Justia Law

Petitioner and his wife were guests at the hotel of the Mardi Gras Casino and Resort (Casino) when Petitioner was injured when he fell off a retaining wall between the hotel and the Casino onto the roadway. Petitioner filed a complaint against the Casino, alleging negligence for its failure to protect him from the dangerousness of the retaining wall. Casino moved for summary judgment, asserting that Petitioner was a trespasser rather than a business invitee at the time of his injury. The trial court granted the motion, concluding (1) by proceeding down a hillside rather than utilizing a skyway bridge or the roadway, Petitioner exceeded the scope of his invitation as an invitee and became a trespasser; and (2) under the standard of care that governs trespass, the Casino did not breach the duty of care owed to Plaintiff. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that factual issues existed as to whether Petitioner acted in a manner that was inconsistent with the scope of his invitation to use the Casino premises, and those issues should be resolved by a jury. View "Ragonese v. Racing Corp. of W. Va." on Justia Law

Ray Toney, a former employee of Citynet, LLC, filed an action seeking to redeem the vested balance of his Employee Incentive Plan account. The circuit court grant partial summary judgment to Toney, concluding that Toney was entitled to payment of his entire vested balance in the Plan, that Citynet’s failure to pay Toney his vested balance violated the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act (WPCA), and that Citynet was liable to Toney for liquidated damages, the costs of the action, and reasonable attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in granting partial summary judgment to Toney or in applying the WPCA; but (2) erred in setting the date from which prejudgment interest would accrue and in failing to offset its award by the amount that Toney previously had received from his Plan account. View "Citynet, LLC v. Toney" on Justia Law

Certain trustees registered trust deed assignments securing the payment of a promissory note for the purchase of residential real estate with Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) rather than recording the trust deed assignments in county record books. Wyoming County and all other similarly situated West Virginia Counties (“Wyoming County”) filed a putative class action against the trustees, alleging that the recording of trust deed assignments in county record books is required by law. The circuit court denied the trustees’ motion to dismiss, ruling that trust deed assignments are required to be publicly recorded and that Wyoming County was entitled to show that the trustees had been unjustly enriched by using MERS to record the assignments. The trustees challenged that ruling in this original proceeding in prohibition. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the circuit court exceeded its jurisdiction in denying the trustees’ motion to dismiss, as West Virginia law does not require that the assignment of a trust deed must be recorded in the office of the clerk of the county commission. View "State ex rel. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Hon. Warren R. McGraw" on Justia Law