Clark v. Milam
Decision Date | 28 June 1994 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 2:92-0935. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia |
Parties | Hanley C. CLARK, Commissioner of Insurance for the State of West Virginia, as Receiver of George Washington Life Insurance Company, Plaintiff, v. Arthur W. MILAM, et. al., Defendants. |
Joshua I. Barrett, Rudolph L. DiTrapano, Debra L. Hamilton, DiTrapano & Jackson, Charleston, WV, Ellen G. Robinson, C. Philip Curley, Mary Cannon Veed, Cynthia H. Hyndman, Robinson Curley & Clayton, P.C., Chicago, IL, for Hanley C. Clark, Com'r of Ins. for State of West Virginia, as Receiver of George Washington Life Ins. Co.
John E. Jenkins, Jr., John M. Poma, Suzanne McGinnis Oxley, Jenkins, Fenstermaker, Krieger, Kayes & Farrell, Huntington, WV, for Arthur W. Milam.
John H. Wilbur, pro se.
Walter C. Walden, pro se.
Dudley D. Allen, pro se.
Frank E. Clark, Jr., pro se.
Michael J. Davoli, pro se.
Rebecca A. Betts, Robert B. King, King, Betts & Allen, Charleston, WV, Paul J. Bschorr, Alice K. Jump, White & Case, New York City, for Carolyn B. Lamm.
Michael Bonasso, Jeffrey M. Wakefield, Flaherty, Sensabaugh & Bonasso, Charleston, WV, for Betty Cordial.
John H. Tinney, John J. Nesius, Miller A. Bushong, III, Spilman, Thomas, Battle & Klostermeyer, Charleston, WV, David Alden, Cleveland, OH, for Tom Fennell, Ernst & Young.
Michael Bonasso, Flaherty, Sensabaugh, & Bonasso, Charleston, WV, for John Pendlebury.
Pending are the motions for summary judgment filed by Defendants Lamm, Milam, Allen, Clark, Davoli, Wilbur, Withers and Thompson. Plaintiff has responded.1 This litigation has spawned an enormous paper trial, including six published memorandum opinions.2 The action initially was filed in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, but was then removed to this Court. The Plaintiff, Hanley C. Clark, Commissioner of Insurance for the State of West Virginia, is the appointed Receiver of the George Washington Life Insurance Company ("GW LIFE"). He has alleged the Defendants were part of a wide-ranging conspiracy to loot the assets of GW LIFE. The Defendants include the former officers and directors, a former lawyer and two former accountants of GW LIFE.3 Several other Defendants were dismissed from this action previously.
Each Defendant asserts no questions of material fact exist and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The standard used to determine whether a motion for summary judgment should be granted or denied was stated recently by our Court of Appeals:
Accord Cornell v. General Electric Plastics, 853 F.Supp. 221, 225-26 (S.D.W.Va.1994) (Haden, C.J.); Thomas v. Shoney's Inc., 845
F.Supp. 388, 389-90 (S.D.W.Va.1994) (Haden C.J.).
Although they have filed several separate briefs, the Defendants rely on similar grounds to support their motions for summary judgment. These grounds include the following: (1) the applicable statute of limitations bar Plaintiff's claims; and (2) Plaintiff's claims are barred under the doctrine of res judicata.
Defendants argue the statute of limitations has run on the claims against them, and therefore Plaintiff's action is barred. The applicable limitations period is two years. W.Va.Code § 55-2-12 (1959).4 Plaintiff does not dispute that over two years elapsed between Defendants' alleged wrongdoing toward GW LIFE and the filing of this lawsuit. Plaintiff instead argues the statute of limitations was tolled until his appointment as Receiver. If the limitations period was tolled, it is undisputed Plaintiff's action was filed timely.
Plaintiff argues the limitations period was tolled under the doctrine of adverse domination. Adverse domination occurs when the officers and directors who control the rights of the corporation act adversely to the corporation's interests, usually for personal gain, to the detriment of the corporation and/or its non-officer/director shareholders. As previously noted in Clark IV, 847 F.Supp. 409, 421 (S.D.W.Va.1994), our Court of Appeals has described the doctrine of adverse domination as follows:
F.D.I.C. v. Cocke, 7 F.3d 396, 402 (4th Cir.1993),5 petition for cert. filed, 62 USLW 3659 (1994).
See also, In re Lloyd Securities, Inc., 153 B.R. 677, 684 (E.D.Pa.1993), citing Resolution Trust Co. v. Gardner, 798 F.Supp. 790, 795 (D.D.C.1992) ("" ).
Although West Virginia has not had occasion to address the viability of the doctrine of adverse domination, this Court concluded the State courts would adopt the doctrine:6 "It seems clear on the basis of West Virginia law and cases that West Virginia courts would toll the statutes of limitation until the Plaintiff's appointment as Receiver on a basis substantially similar to application of the doctrine of adverse domination."7Clark IV, supra, 847 F.Supp. at 423.8 In Clark IV this Court discussed the rationale behind the foregoing conclusion, stating:
Defendant Lamm makes much of the fact that the particular Defendants in Clark IV were accused of fraud, and suggests the doctrine of adverse domination may be utilized only against a defendant who has concealed intentional tortious conduct fraudulently.
The basis for this Court's ruling in Clark IV was clearly the similarity between the doctrine of adverse domination and West Virginia's discovery rule.10 As stated in Syllabus Point 1 of Cart v. Marcum, 188 W.Va. 241, 423 S.E.2d 644 (1992): "Generally a cause of action accrues (i.e., the statute of limitations begins to run) when a tort occurs; under the `discovery rule,' the statute of limitations is tolled until a claimant knows or by reasonable diligence should know of his claim." (emphasis added). The discovery rule applies not only in cases of fraud, but in all tort actions. Syllabus Point 2, Cart v. Marcum, supra, ("The `discovery rule' is generally applicable to all torts, unless there is a clear prohibition of its application."); Syllabus Point 3, Stemple v. Dobson, 184 W.Va. 317, 400 S.E.2d 561 (1990). Although fraudulent concealment is not necessary to activate the discovery rule, "some action" by the defendant to prevent discovery of the tort is required. Syllabus Point 3, Cart v. Marcum, supra (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Grant Thornton, Llp v. F.D.I.C.
...their knowledge and/or conduct to the FDIC would be improper under the adverse interest exception to imputation. See Clark v. Milam, 872 F.Supp. 307, 310 (S.D.W.Va.1994). Aside from seeking to impute the knowledge of Keystone's corrupt insiders to the FDIC, Grant Thornton has argued that th......
-
Economic Dev. v. Arthur Andersen & Co.
...concealing the fraudulent activities of the enterprise. In Clark v. Milam, 847 F.Supp. 409 (S.D.W.Va.), recons. denied, 872 F.Supp. 307 (S.D.W.Va.1994), the Court refused to dismiss a § 1962(c) claim against accountants who had performed allegedly deficient audits for a RICO enterprise. The......
-
Cordial v. Ernst & Young
...also policyholders, creditors and the public." Clark v. Milam, 192 W.Va. 398, 404, 452 S.E.2d 714, 720 (1994) (quoting Clark v. Milam, 872 F.Supp. 307, 314 (S.D.W.Va.1994)). Moreover, the district court found that the language of W.Va.Code § 33-27-10: [199 W.Va. 128] of receiver, Ms. Cordia......
-
Clark v. Milam
...IV, 847 F.Supp. 409 (S.D.W.Va.1994); Clark V, 847 F.Supp. 424 (S.D.W.Va.1994); Clark VI, 155 F.R.D. 546 (S.D.W.Va.1994); Clark VII, 872 F.Supp. 307 (S.D.W.Va.1994); and Clark VIII, 192 W.Va. 398, 452 S.E.2d 714 (1994). 2 W.Va.Code § 33-10-14(b) provides: "As domiciliary receiver, the commis......
-
The strict Ohio Supreme Court decision in Biddle: third party law firm held liable for inducing disclosure of medical information.
...any injury that might result from a physician's unauthorized disclosure of information." Id. (emphasis added). (68) Bullion, 872 F. Supp. at 307. (69) Tighe, 146 A.D.2d at (70) Id. at 269-70. (71) Id. at 272. Similar to Bullion, the action in Tighe was also brought under an action for perso......