This case involved two consolidated petitions by the West Virginia Department of Transportation, Division of Highways (DOH), seeking writs of prohibition to block circuit court orders in eminent domain proceedings. The orders required DOH to produce appraisal reports prepared for its South Mineral Wells highway project to property owners and lessees (Jones and the Pannells) during discovery. The Supreme Court of Appeals granted the writs, holding that federal regulations (49 C.F.R. § 24.9) adopted by state law mandate confidentiality of such appraisals and bar their disclosure. The court expressly overruled its prior decision in Cookman for failing to apply these mandatory federal confidentiality rules to condemnation discovery disputes.
This case arose from a construction dispute at the Merritt Creek Farms Development in West Virginia, where general contractor J.A. Street & Associates sought to recover 2003 remediation costs for settlement damage at the Shops A buildings from geotechnical firm S&ME, Inc., alleging improper fill placement; the claims were asserted as cross-claims in ongoing litigation brought by the property owners against multiple parties. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment to S&ME, ruling that Street's independent claims for those costs were barred by the statute of limitations and that W. Va. Code § 55-2-21 did not toll the limitations period. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed, holding that the lower court erred in its application of the tolling statute to the cross-claims and in rejecting the possibility that the discovery rule preserved the claims based on disputed facts about when the cause of the damage was known.
This case arose from a construction dispute at the Merritt Creek Farms Development in West Virginia, where general contractor J.A. Street & Associates incurred remediation costs in 2003 to address settlement damage at the Shops A area and sought recovery through cross-claims against geotechnical firm S&ME, Inc. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment to S&ME, dismissing Street's claims as time-barred under the statute of limitations and finding that W. Va. Code § 55-2-21 did not toll the period because the claims were independent rather than true cross-claims. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the ruling, determining that the tolling statute could apply to preserve the cross-claims and that disputed facts regarding the discovery rule created genuine issues preventing summary judgment. The court remanded the case for further proceedings on the timeliness of Street's claims for the 2003 costs.
This case involved a dispute between BrickStreet Mutual Insurance Company and its policyholder Summit Point Raceway Associates over coverage for a deliberate-intent lawsuit brought by an injured employee. Summit Point had requested defense and indemnification under its workers’ compensation and employers’ liability policy, but BrickStreet denied the claim based on an intentional-injury exclusion; the circuit court granted partial summary judgment to Summit Point, ruling that West Virginia Code § 23-4C-6 imposed a duty on the insurer to offer commercially reasonable deliberate-intent coverage and that the policy language was ambiguous. BrickStreet appealed the resulting money judgment. The Supreme Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the statute created no affirmative obligation on the insurer and that the policy unambiguously excluded deliberate-intent claims.
The case concerned the proper application of a West Virginia statute governing the Telecommunications Tax, under which the Public Service Commission issues an annual list of competitive services exempt from tax on a provider's gross income. Frontier sought a refund for 2004 based on the PSC's December 2004 list, while the Tax Commissioner maintained that a clarifying legislative rule made the list applicable only to the following calendar year. The circuit court held the statute unambiguous and the rule invalid, ruling that the 2004 list governed 2004 taxes and awarding Frontier over $9 million. The Supreme Court affirmed the finding that the statute is plain and unambiguous but reversed the invalidation of the rule, holding that the PSC list defines exempt income for the succeeding year and reinstating the Office of Tax Appeals' denial of the refund.
In this appeal, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals reviewed a circuit court's order imposing monetary sanctions on Joseph Casaccio and National Indemnity Company for their conduct during court-ordered mediation in a wrongful death action arising from a 2003 vehicular accident. The central issue was whether West Virginia Trial Court Rule 25.10 authorizes sanctions against an insurance carrier that fails, without good cause, to appear at mediation with a representative possessing full settlement authority. The court held that the rule does permit such sanctions on insurance carriers, but concluded that no sanctionable conduct occurred here, as the carrier's representative participated adequately under the circumstances and any limitations on authority were not improperly concealed, resulting in reversal of the sanctions order.