Bland v. State
Decision Date | 21 November 2012 |
Docket Number | 11–0747,Nos. 11–0746,11–1146.,s. 11–0746 |
Citation | 230 W.Va. 263,737 S.E.2d 291 |
Parties | Dawn Colette BLAND and Autumn Nicole Bland, Wife and Infant Daughter of Douglas Wayne Bland; Trooper Robert Joseph Elswick; Trooper Michael David Lynch; Trooper Timothy Lane Bragg; Trooper Christopher Lee Casto; Trooper Shawn Michael Coleman; Trooper Jeffrey Lealton Cooper; Trooper Brad Lee Mankins; Trooper Christopher Adam Parsons; Trooper Roger Dale Boone; Trooper Steven P. Owens; and Trooper Adam Wilson Scott, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs Below, Petitioners v. STATE of West Virginia; West Virginia State Police Retirement System; West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board, a West Virginia State Agency and Public Corporate Body; West Virginia Public Employees Retirement System, a West Virginia State Agency and Public Corporate Body; Terasa L. Miller, Acting Executive Director of West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board; and West Virginia State Police, a West Virginia State Agency and Public Corporate Body, Defendants Below, Respondents. Dawn Colette Bland and Autumn Nicole Bland, Wife and Infant Daughter of Douglas Wayne Bland; Trooper Robert Joseph Elswick; Trooper Michael David Lynch; Trooper Timothy Lane Bragg; Trooper Christopher Lee Casto; Trooper Shawn Michael Coleman; Trooper Jeffrey Lealton Cooper; Trooper Brad Lee Mankins; Trooper Christopher Adam Parsons; Trooper Roger Dale Boone; Trooper Steven P. Owens; and Trooper Adam Wilson Scott, and all others similarly Situated, Plaintiffs Below, Petitioners v. West Virginia State Police, Defendant Below, Respondent. Dawn Colette Bland and Autumn Nicole Bland, Wife and Infant Daughter of Douglas Wayne Bland; Trooper Robert Joseph Elswick; Trooper Michael David Lynch; Trooper Timothy Lane Bragg; Trooper Christopher Lee Casto; Trooper Jeffrey Lealton Cooper; Trooper Brad Lee Mankins; Trooper Roger Dale Boone; Trooper Steven P. Owens; and Trooper Adam Wilson Scott, Plaintiffs Below, Petitioners v. State of West Virginia; West Virginia State Police Retirement System; West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board, A West Virginia State Agency and Public Corporate Body; West Virginia Public Employees Retirement System, A West Virginia State Agency and Public Corporate Body; Terasa L. Miller, Acting Executive Director of West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board; and West Virginia State Police, A West Virginia State Agency and Public Corporate Body, Defendants Below, Respondents. |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court
1. “Collateral estoppel will bar a claim if four conditions are met: (1) The issue previously decided is identical to the one presented in the action in question; (2) there is a final adjudication on the merits of the prior action; (3) the party against whom the doctrine is invoked was a party or in privity with a party to a prior action; and (4) the party against whom the doctrine is raised had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior action.” Syl. pt. 1, State v. Miller, 194 W.Va. 3, 459 S.E.2d 114 (1995).
2. “In order to prove actionable negligence there must be shown a duty on the part of the person charged with negligence and a breach of such duty.” Syl. pt. 2, Atkinson v. Harman, 151 W.Va. 1025, 158 S.E.2d 169 (1967).
3. “Liability of a person for injury to another cannot be predicated on negligence unless there has been on the part of the person sought to be charged some omission or act of commission in breach of duty to the person injured.” Syl. pt. 6, Morrison v. Roush, 110 W.Va. 398, 158 S.E. 514 (1931).
4. “Courts will not ordinarily decide a moot question.” Syl. pt. 1, Tynes v. Shore, 117 W.Va. 355, 185 S.E. 845 (1936).
5. “Language in an insurance policy should be given its plain, ordinary meaning.” Syl. pt. 1, Soliva v. Shand, Morahan & Co., Inc., 176 W.Va. 430, 345 S.E.2d 33 (1986), overruled on other grounds by National Mut. Ins. Co. v. McMahon & Sons, 177 W.Va. 734, 356 S.E.2d 488 (1987).
6. “Where the provisions of an insurance policy contract are clear and unambiguous they are not subject to judicial construction or interpretation, but full effect will be given to the plain meaning intended.” Syl., Keffer v. Prudential Ins. Co., 153 W.Va. 813, 172 S.E.2d 714 (1970).
7. “Whenever the language of an insurance policy provision is reasonably susceptible of two different meanings or is of such doubtful meaning that reasonable minds might be uncertain or disagree as to its meaning, it is ambiguous.” Syl. pt. 1, Prete v. Merchants Property Ins. Co., 159 W.Va. 508, 223 S.E.2d 441 (1976).
8. “The constitutional immunity of the state from suit extends to its governmental agencies.” Syl. pt. 2, in part, Stewart v. State Road Comm'n, 117 W.Va. 352, 185 S.E. 567 (1936).
9. “Suits which seek no recovery from state funds, but rather allege that recovery is sought under and up to the limits of the State's liability insurance coverage, fall outside the traditional constitutional bar to suits against the State.” Syl. pt. 2, Pittsburgh Elevator v. W. Va. Bd. of Regents, 172 W.Va. 743, 310 S.E.2d 675 (1983).
Marvin W. Masters, Esq., The Masters Law Firm LC, Charleston, WV, for Petitioners.
Thomas S. Sweeney, Esq., E. Taylor George, Esq., MacCorkle Lavender & Sweeney, Charleston, WV, for Respondents State
of West Virginia, West Virginia State Police Retirement System, West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board, West Virginia Public Employees Retirement System, and Terasa L. Miller.
Wendy E. Greve, Esq., Gary E. Pullin, Esq., Pullin, Fowler, Flanagan, Brown & Poe, PLLC, Charleston, WV, for Respondent West Virginia State Police.
On appeal before this Court are consolidated appeals of three separate final orders of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County.
In case number 11–0476, the petitioners, who are state troopers or their survivors, appeal the March 30, 2011, order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County that dismissed with prejudice the petitioners' complaint alleging they were placed in the wrong retirement plan against Respondents West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board (“the Retirement Board”); Terasa L. Miller, acting executive director of the West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board (“Director Miller”); the State of West Virginia; the West Virginia State Police Retirement System; and the West Virginia Public Employees Retirement System (“PERS”).
In case number 11–0477, the petitioners appeal the March 30, 2011, order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County that granted summary judgment in favor of Respondent West Virginia State Police in the petitioners' claim that the State Police, during the recruitment of the petitioners, misrepresented which retirement plan the petitioners would be placed in upon their employment as state troopers.
Finally, in case number 11–1146, the petitioners appeal the June 29, 2011, order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County that denied the petitioners' motion, made pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, for relief from the circuit court's March 30, 2011, order dismissing the complaint against the Retirement Board, Director Miller, the State of West Virginia, PERS, and the State Police Retirement System.
After considering the parties' arguments and the appendix filed with this Court, and upon application of the relevant law, for the reasons set forth below, this Court affirms the circuit court's March 30, 2011, order that dismissed all of the respondents except the State Police; the March 30, 2011, order that granted summary judgment on behalf of the State Police; and the June 29, 2011, order that denied the petitioners' Rule 60(b) motion.
According to the petitioners, they are members, or dependents of members, of the 42nd, 43rd, 44th, and 45th cadet classes of the respondent West Virginia State Police.1 The petitioners allege that they became employed by the State Police in the belief that they would be enrolled in a benefit and retirement plan known as the West Virginia State Police Death, Disability and Retirement Fund (“Plan A”) that would provide certain established benefits. However, they were actually enrolled in a plan known as the West Virginia State Police Retirement System (“Plan B”) that, according to the petitioners, provides significantly fewer benefits.
In December 2001, the petitioners commenced an administrative proceeding with the Retirement Board seeking participation in Plan A. Originally, the Retirement Board members voted to grant the petitioners' requested relief and directed that they be placed in Plan A. However, shortly thereafter, the Retirement Board voted to reconsider its decision and directed the hearing officer to conduct individual hearings for each of the petitioners.
The petitioners thereafter filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County requesting that the court direct the Retirement Board to transfer the petitioners to Plan A. The petitioners asserted that the Retirement Board had a non-discretionary, ministerial duty to carry out its original decision to transfer the petitioners to Plan A. The petitioners also alleged that the Retirement Board did not have the power to reconsider its original decision. In response, the Retirement Board filed a motion to dismiss the petitioners' mandamus action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
By order of November 17, 2004, the circuit court granted the Retirement Board's motion to dismiss. The court found that the original decision to transfer the state troopers into Plan A did not constitute a final order which divested the Retirement Board of jurisdiction over the matter or the power to reconsider its original action. The court reasoned that the Retirement Board's original decision was never finalized by the issuance of a written final order containing requisite findings of fact, conclusions of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morgantown Energy Assocs. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of W. Va.
...that New Martinsville/MEA's underlying conclusions would merit preclusive effect on collateral estoppel grounds. See Bland v. State, 737 S.E.2d 291, 297 (W. Va. 2012) ("Collateral estoppel will bar a claim if four conditions are met: (1) The issue previously decided is identical to the one ......
-
Allied World Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Day Surgery Ltd.
...a separate grant of coverage that precludes coverage under all other insuring agreements in the Primary Policy. See Bland v. State , 230 W.Va. 263, 737 S.E.2d 291, 305 (2012) (noting that generally, under West Virginia law, "an endorsement to an insurance policy is intended to modify the po......
-
Halcomb v. Smith
... ... Clendennen, 111 W.Va. 121, 161 S.E. 21 (1931) (Under the laws of this state ... the guest [737 S.E.2d 289]must exercise ordinary care for his own safety[.]).Defendant Halcomb asserts that plaintiff Smith may have breached a ... ...
-
Davari v. W. Va. Univ. Bd. of Governors
...omitted).14 Id.15 153 W. Va. 121, 168 S.E.2d 298 (1969).16 172 W. Va. 743, 310 S.E.2d 675 (1983).17 Id.18 Syl. Pt. 5, Bland v. State , 230 W. Va. 263, 737 S.E.2d 291 (2012) (quoting Syl. pt. 1, Soliva v. Shand, Morahan & Co., Inc. , 176 W. Va. 430, 345 S.E.2d 33 (1986), overruled on other g......