W. Craig Broadwater

The case involved APAC-Atlantic suing Travelers Indemnity Company for breach of contract, claiming Travelers failed to defend and indemnify APAC in a wrongful death lawsuit arising from a highway construction project where APAC was the general contractor and PSI was a subcontractor insured by Travelers. The court granted summary judgment to Travelers. The reasoning was that the insurance policy only provided coverage to APAC as an additional insured for liability arising out of PSI's work, but the underlying complaint did not allege any claims against PSI or liability stemming from PSI's actions.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved a dispute over whether the Paughs' Westfield umbrella insurance policy provided $1 million in uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage for injuries Scott Paugh sustained in a 2002 motor vehicle accident. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the coverage issue, with undisputed facts showing that Westfield's agent required the Paughs to sign a rejection form to obtain the policy and that no optional UM/UIM coverage was offered during the application process despite West Virginia Code § 33-6-31's requirements and Westfield's prior representations. The court denied Westfield's motion and granted the Paughs' motion, holding that Westfield failed to make an effective statutory offer of coverage and that coverage therefore applied by operation of law.

business & regulatory

The case involved Clarence and Sherri Pennington suing the Berkeley County Planning Commission and individual members under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that denial of final plat approval for their commercial development (including a liquor store and video lottery machines) violated their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, purportedly due to public opposition rather than the stated regulatory reasons. Plaintiffs had successfully challenged the initial denial in state court via writ of certiorari, resulting in an order for preliminary approval that was not appealed. The federal district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint, ruling that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred federal jurisdiction over claims tied to the state court outcome, individual defendants were protected by qualified immunity, and no valid due process claim was stated because any delay did not implicate a protected property interest in the manner alleged. The court denied plaintiffs' motion to strike the dismissal motion, finding it procedurally proper under Rule 12(b).

civil rightspropertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved environmental groups suing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and West Virginia transportation officials to block a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit for a new four-lane highway project, including a bridge over the Shenandoah River, after the Federal Highway Administration had already approved the project following an environmental impact statement. The plaintiffs claimed the Corps violated NEPA and the CWA by improperly relying on the prior federal review, failing to assess the full project scope or changed circumstances, and issuing its environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact without public notice. The court granted summary judgment to the agencies, ruling that the Corps' actions complied with both statutes because it had coordinated as a cooperating agency, followed its own NEPA regulations, and was not required to duplicate the FHWA's review or provide extra public comment periods.

environmentfederal power

In Duwel v. Charles Town General Hospital, a surgeon sued his former hospital employers alleging that misinformation about the availability of a leave of absence led him to involuntarily surrender his medical staff privileges, violating his common-law due process rights, the Health Care Quality Improvement Act, and hospital bylaws; he sought damages, a declaratory judgment on immunity, removal of a report to the National Practitioner’s Data Bank, and reinstatement of privileges. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that the evidence showed Duwel voluntarily tendered his privileges to avoid a credential committee vote and investigation, that facing an unpleasant choice between resignation and investigation does not render the resignation involuntary under precedent, and that the plaintiff’s affidavit—essentially restating his pleadings—failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact.

procedurehealthcarecivil rights

This case involved environmental groups challenging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' decision to adopt a Federal Highway Administration environmental impact statement for a proposed 4.6-mile highway project in West Virginia without preparing its own analysis, alleging violations of the Clean Water Act, NEPA, and the APA. The court granted the defendants' motion in limine, barring relitigation of issues regarding alternatives to the highway and indirect environmental impacts under the doctrine of collateral estoppel because those matters had already been fully litigated and decided in a prior related case against the FHWA. The court also granted the motion to dismiss the APA count, holding that the APA does not create an independent substantive cause of action but serves only as a procedural vehicle for claims under other statutes. The remaining claims regarding the Corps' adoption of the prior EIS were allowed to proceed.

environmentprocedure

This case involved post-trial motions by defendants Jackson and West following their federal jury convictions on charges including a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE) under 21 U.S.C. § 848, drug conspiracy and distribution offenses, and an intentional killing in furtherance of the CCE. The defendants sought judgment of acquittal or a new trial under Rules 29(c) and 33, arguing errors such as improper denial of severance of defendants and counts, disqualification of counsel shortly before trial, and various evidentiary rulings including admission of exhibits and witness rehabilitation. The court denied the motions in full, reasoning that joinder of defendants and offenses was proper under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8 because the charges arose from the same series of acts or transactions forming a common scheme, that no strong showing of prejudice justified severance of counts for testimony purposes, and that the remaining claims failed to demonstrate reversible error or prejudice to the defendants.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit filed by plaintiff Rankin against the Berkeley County Sheriff's Department, county commission, prosecuting attorney's office, and individual officials, alleging that sheriff's deputies assaulted him during an arrest related to a workplace dispute and that prosecutors failed to investigate or pursue charges against the officers, violating his constitutional rights. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the federal claims. It held that the prosecutor enjoyed absolute immunity for prosecutorial decisions including whether to investigate or charge, qualified immunity for the decision not to investigate, and that the municipal defendants could not be held liable absent allegations of an unconstitutional policy or custom. The court dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

The Route 9 Opposition Legal Fund and affiliated environmental groups sued federal and West Virginia officials to challenge the Federal Highway Administration's approval of a new 4.6-mile four-lane highway section, alleging violations of NEPA and Section 4(f) in the environmental review process. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the claims of two organizational plaintiffs for lack of standing due to failure to allege concrete, particularized injuries and rejecting the remaining claims on the merits. The court held that the agency's decision was not arbitrary or capricious because the FHWA had considered relevant factors, evaluated multiple alternatives including a no-action option, and incorporated measures to minimize harm to protected properties in its final environmental impact statement.

environmentprocedure

The case arose from a car accident in West Virginia caused by an intoxicated driver, Denni Slack, who had rented a vehicle from Penrac (doing business as Enterprise Rent-A-Car) in Pennsylvania. Selective Insurance, appearing for Slack after substituted service, filed a third-party claim against Penrac seeking a declaration that the rental company was required to provide minimum liability coverage under Pennsylvania's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law and that its coverage was primary. After settlements with the plaintiffs and another party, the court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on whether the rental contract obligated Penrac to extend such coverage. The court held that the contract language, under which Slack declined supplemental liability protection and acknowledged his own insurance as primary, complied with Pennsylvania statutory requirements for shifting financial responsibility, so Penrac had no duty to provide coverage. Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment to Penrac and denied it to Selective.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case arose from the 1998 arrest of plaintiff Aram Hessami for trespass at a private park in West Virginia after he and his children refused repeated requests to move from a basketball court while contractors mowed the lawn nearby. Hessami sued the town, its police captain, the park president, and the park under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged Fourth Amendment violations, conspiracy to violate civil rights, and related state-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. It concluded there was no genuine issue of material fact because the officer had probable cause to arrest for trespass under state law, the private park president was not acting under color of state law, and no constitutional violation or conspiracy was shown.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a federal prisoner's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate her sentence after pleading guilty to felon-in-possession of a firearm and cocaine distribution charges, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel during plea and sentencing. The court rejected claims regarding a sentencing enhancement for the firearm but found counsel's performance deficient for failing to know or advise on U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2(d), which mandates consecutive sentences on multiple counts, and for not reviewing the presentence report's explanation of its impact. Because the petitioner showed she would have proceeded to trial if properly informed, the court granted the motion, vacated the sentence and plea agreement, and ordered a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose when Aubrey Henry applied for a conditional use permit to construct townhouses on his Jefferson County, West Virginia property after his restaurant burned down; his application was denied following community opposition and unresolved compatibility issues, while a similar permit was granted to another applicant. Henry sued the county planning commission and officials, claiming violations of his rights, including allegations of racial discrimination in the zoning process related to low-income housing. The district court granted the defendants' renewed motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that Henry failed to present sufficient evidence to support his constitutional claims or establish standing for the discrimination allegations under the applicable zoning ordinance and appellate procedures.

civil rightsproperty

The case concerned whether a federal sentencing court could include a defendant's prior juvenile drug possession adjudication in calculating his criminal history score under the Sentencing Guidelines, even though West Virginia law had changed from providing for expungement to sealing of such records. The court decided that the juvenile record could be considered because it had only been sealed, not expunged, and federal sentencing guidelines control over conflicting state laws regarding the treatment of juvenile records. The reasoning relied on the distinction in the Guidelines between expunged convictions (which are excluded if for innocence or legal error) and sealed records (which may be included), as well as Fourth Circuit precedents emphasizing uniformity in federal sentencing and the Supremacy Clause.

criminal lawfederal power

The case involved the West Virginia Attorney General's lawsuit in state court against automobile dealers, related individuals, and assignee banks under the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, alleging violations including failure to disclose that dealers were adding interest points to bank-quoted rates and receiving kickbacks. Defendant National City Bank removed the case to federal court, arguing that amended claims XV and XVI triggered complete preemption under sections 85 and 86 of the National Bank Act, which govern interest rates charged by national banks. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, holding that federal question jurisdiction was absent under the well-pleaded complaint rule because the claims asserted only state-law disclosure violations rather than excessive interest charges. The court reasoned that NBA preemption applies only to allegations of interest rates exceeding state limits, not to nondisclosure of fees, and sided with the majority of district courts finding no complete preemption for such consumer protection claims.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

In Jones v. Painter, the petitioner filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction and sentence, alleging multiple grounds including improper use of prior Virginia convictions for recidivist enhancement, ineffective assistance of counsel, vagueness of the kidnapping statute, and denial of certain testimony. The district court granted the respondent's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the petition. The court reasoned that the claims either raised purely state-law issues not cognizable on federal habeas review, failed to meet the Strickland standard for ineffective assistance of counsel, or lacked any showing of a federal constitutional violation, while noting that exhaustion and timeliness requirements were satisfied.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

In Turner v. United States, the petitioner filed a timely habeas corpus petition under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his federal conviction on two grounds: that the indictment was defective for omitting statutory penalty provisions and thus failed to properly charge an offense, and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by not advising him of his right to testify, failing to object to jury instructions, and not seeking dismissal of the indictment. The court denied the petition and dismissed the case. It held that defects in an indictment are generally not reviewable in habeas proceedings and that the indictment here was legally sufficient because it adequately informed the defendant of the charges and elements. On the ineffective assistance claim, the court applied the Strickland v. Washington standard and found neither deficient performance by counsel nor resulting prejudice, noting that the record showed the defendant was advised of his rights and that counsel's strategic decisions were within professional bounds.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved plaintiffs who sued an insurance company and its law firm in state court, claiming the firm failed to pay amounts specified in a settlement agreement reached on the insurer's behalf. Defendants removed the action to federal court on diversity grounds, asserting that the non-diverse law firm had been fraudulently joined. The court denied the motion to remand and dismissed the law firm, holding that West Virginia law provides no basis for holding a law firm liable under agency principles for breach of a settlement agreement executed for its client. Because no relevant state precedent existed and the court could not expand West Virginia law while sitting in diversity, plaintiffs had no possibility of stating a claim against the firm.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In McDaniel v. Travelers Property Casualty Insurance, the plaintiff brought claims against his underinsured motorist insurer following a car accident, subsequent tort litigation against the at-fault driver, and disputes over the distribution of liability insurance proceeds and enforcement of a release agreement that addressed subrogation rights. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on counts for breach of contract, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and willful interference with receipt of a judgment award. The core reasoning was that the insurer's petition to enforce its interpretation of the release constituted protected litigation conduct with no supporting evidence of bad faith, West Virginia law does not recognize the interference cause of action, and the plaintiff failed to raise any genuine issue of material fact.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a plaintiff suing her former employer in West Virginia state court for retaliatory discharge after her employment was terminated in response to filing for workers' compensation benefits under the WVWCA. The defendants removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, prompting the plaintiff's motion to remand on the ground that 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c) bars removal of claims arising under state workers' compensation laws. The court granted the motion to remand, reasoning that retaliatory discharge claims are integrally related to the WVWCA's operation and thus arise under its laws, unlike Mandolidis claims which the Fourth Circuit had held removable in Arthur v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.

labor & employmentprocedure