Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Morrisey, 13–0195.

• Decision Date: 11 June 2014
• Docket Number: No. 13–0195.,13–0195.
• Citation: 760 S.E.2d 863
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Massachusetts corporation; and Greg Chandler's Frame & Body, LLC, a West Virginia limited liability corporation, Defendants Below, Petitioners v. Patrick MORRISEY, Attorney General, Plaintiff Below, Respondent.

760 S.E.2d 863

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Massachusetts corporation; and Greg Chandler's Frame & Body, LLC, a West Virginia limited liability corporation, Defendants Below, Petitioners

v.Patrick MORRISEY, Attorney General, Plaintiff Below, Respondent.

No. 13–0195.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted March 25, 2014.

Decided June 11, 2014.

Syllabus by the Court

1. “A circuit court's entry of summary judgment is reviewed de novo.” Syllabus Point 1, Painter v. Peavy, 192 W.Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994).

2. “A motion for summary judgment should be granted only when it is clear that there is no genuine issue of fact to be tried and inquiry concerning the facts is not desirable to clarify the application of the law.” Syllabus Point 3, Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Federal Ins. Co. of New York, 148 W.Va. 160, 133 S.E.2d 770 (1963).

3. “The primary object in construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature.” Syllabus Point 1, Smith v. State Workmen's Comp. Comm'r, 159 W.Va. 108, 219 S.E.2d 361 (1975).

4. “A statutory provision which is clear and unambiguous and plainly expresses the legislative intent will not be interpreted by the courts but will be given full force and effect.” Syllabus Point 2, State v. Epperly, 135 W.Va. 877, 65 S.E.2d 488 (1951).

5. “When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.” Syllabus Point 5, State v. General Daniel Morgan Post No. 548, V.F.W., 144 W.Va. 137, 107 S.E.2d 353 (1959).

6. “A statute that is ambiguous must be construed before it can be applied.” Syllabus Point 1, Farley v. Buckalew, 186 W.Va. 693, 414 S.E.2d 454 (1992).

7. “Judicial interpretation of a statute is warranted only if the statute is ambiguous and the initial step in such interpretative inquiry is to ascertain the legislative intent.” Syllabus Point 1, Ohio County Comm'n v. Manchin, 171 W.Va. 552, 301 S.E.2d 183 (1983).

8. “A statute, or an administrative rule, may not, under the guise of ‘interpretation,’ be modified, revised, amended or rewritten.” Syllabus Point 1, Consumer Advocate Division v. Public Service Commission, 182 W.Va. 152, 386 S.E.2d 650 (1989).

9. “In ascertaining legislative intent, effect must be given to each part of the statute and to the statute as a whole so as to accomplish the general purpose of the legislation.” Syllabus Point 2, Smith v. State Workmen's Compensation Com'r, 159 W.Va. 108, 219 S.E.2d 361 (1975).

10. “Statutes which relate to the same subject matter should be read and applied together so that the Legislature's intention can be gathered from the whole of the enactments.” Syllabus Point 3, Smith v. State Workmen's Compensation Com'r, 159 W.Va. 108, 219 S.E.2d 361 (1975).

11. “Statutes which relate to the same persons or things, or to the same class of persons or things, or statutes which have a common purpose will be regarded in Pari materia to assure recognition and implementation of the legislative intent. Accordingly, a court should not limit its consideration to any single part, provision, section, sentence, phrase or word, but rather review the act or statute in its entirety to ascertain legislative intent properly.” Syllabus Point 5, Fruehauf Corp. v. Huntington Moving & Storage Co., 159 W.Va. 14, 217 S.E.2d 907 (1975).

12. “Statutes in pari materia must be construed together and the legislative intention, as gathered from the whole of the enactments, must be given effect.” Syllabus Point 3, State ex rel. Graney v. Sims, 144 W.Va. 72, 105 S.E.2d 886 (1958).

Clarence E. Martin, III, Esq., Martin & Seibert, LC, Martinsburg, WV, for Petitioner, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.

R. Michael Shaw, Esq., Point Pleasant, WV, for Petitioner, Greg Chandler's Frame & Body, LLC.

Patrick Morrisey, Esq., Attorney General, Douglas L. Davis, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, WV, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:

The instant action is before the Court upon the appeal of Petitioners, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (“Liberty Mutual”) and Greg Chandler's Frame & Body, LLC (“Chandler's”), from a December 13, 2012, order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County granting the Respondent, Patrick Morrisey, Attorney General of West Virginia's motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss Petitioners' counterclaim for declaratory judgment. The circuit court also permanently enjoined Liberty Mutual from requiring the use of salvage/recycled OEM crash parts when negotiating repairs for motor vehicles in the year of the vehicle's manufacture or in the two succeeding years without written consent of the vehicle owner, and permanently enjoined Chandler's from preparing estimates for the repair of new vehicles using salvage/recycled OEM crash parts unless it provided disclosures and obtained written consent of the vehicle owner. In this appeal, Petitioners allege that the circuit court's interpretation of the West Virginia Automotive Crash Parts Act, W. Va.Code § 46A–6B–1, et seq. (1995), (“Crash Parts Act”) was erroneous and that the circuit court erred in granting the State's motions without conducting further discovery. Conversely, the State asserts that the circuit court's interpretation of the Crash Parts Act was proper and that Petitioners' admission that it required the use of salvage/recycled OEM parts without written consent was fatal to its Rule 56(f) affidavit. Upon examination of the petition, the response, the submitted appendices, and the arguments of counsel, we conclude that, for reasons set forth more fully below, the circuit court's order should be reversed and that this matter be remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Petitioner Liberty Mutual is an insurance company licensed to do business in West Virginia. Liberty Mutual maintains a list of preferred body shops that may be selected by their insureds to repair vehicles that are involved in accidents or otherwise damaged. It refers to these preferred body shops as Total Liberty Care (“TLC”) Shops. Petitioner Chandler's operates an automobile body shop in West Virginia and is one of Liberty Mutual's TLC Shops.¹

Liberty Mutual maintains a nationwide policy for its TLC Shops concerning the use of salvage/recycled OEM crash parts. Liberty Mutual asserts that it directed its TLC shops to repair vehicles utilizing salvage/recycled OEM crash parts where available and appropriate, which satisfied the following criteria: (a) manufactured by the original manufacturer; (b) from a vehicle of the same model year or newer; and (c) with the same number of miles or fewer than the vehicle to be repaired. However, Liberty Mutual's policy that it did not utilize aftermarket crash parts in the repair of vehicles three years old or newer did not change.²

On December 15, 2011, the Attorney General filed a complaint and petition for temporary and permanent injunction alleging that (1) Petitioner Liberty Mutual required the use of salvage/recycled OEM crash parts when negotiating the repairs for motor vehicles without the written consent of the motor vehicle owner in violation of the West Virginia Crash Parts Act (§ 46A–6B–3) and the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (§ 46A–6–104); (2) Petitioner Chandler's failed to include a written statement notifying motor vehicle owners that salvage/recycled OEM crash parts were being used to repair their vehicles in violation of West Virginia Code §§ 46A–6B–4 and 46A–6–104; and (3) Petitioners' failure to disclose to consumers that salvage/recycled OEM crash parts were being used was an unfair or deceptive practice as defined by West Virginia Code § 46A–6–102(7)(M) in violation of West Virginia Code § 46A–6–104.³

Petitioners removed the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, asserting that the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”), 15 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq., preempted the West Virginia Automotive Crash Parts Act, W.Va.Code § 46A–6B–1, et seq., because it “prohibit[ed] manufacturers from voiding or invalidating warranties based on the use of aftermarket or recycled OEM parts during repairs.” The District Court, Judge Goodwin, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order on March 27, 2012, remanding the case back to the circuit court, concluding, in part, that (1) the MMWA prohibits warrantors of consumer products from conditioning warranties on certain circumstances, (2) the West Virginia Crash Parts Act maintains standards for motor vehicle shops and insurance companies for the repair of newer automobiles, and (3) therefore, the two laws govern different actors and different conduct.

Upon remand, the circuit court held a hearing on April 9, 2012, on the State's motion for temporary injunction, at which time the parties agreed that the matter could be decided on cross motions for summary judgment. Petitioners agreed that they would convert their previously-filed motion to dismiss to a summary judgment motion with the right to supplement said motion. The circuit court permitted the parties the opportunity to conduct discovery, but no scheduling order was entered. On April 25, 2012, the Petitioners each filed an answer to the Attorney General's complaint, including a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment concerning the issues at hand. Petitioners also served discovery requests upon the State.

Thereafter, the State filed its motion for summary judgment and attached as exhibits emails between Liberty Mutual and its TLC Shops, work orders from TLC Shops, manufacturer's position statements from Mazda, Honda, Volvo and Ford, published opinions from automobile industry guide Edmunds.com, and correspondence from the New York State Auto Collision Technicians Association and the Federal Trade Commission. The State then filed a motion to dismiss Petitioners'...