Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.
740 S.E.2d 1
Va.2013Background
- Caperton and Massey/Wellmore dispute spans multiple courts over 15+ years, with prior Virginia and West Virginia contract and tort actions.
- First Virginia Action (2000–2001) involved Harman Mining and Sovereign vs Wellmore for breach of the CSA; jury awarded ~$6 million.
- Second action (2010–2011) in Virginia challenged Massey’s conduct as tortious and sought new relief; Massey pled res judicata and limitations.
- Virginia circuit court held res judicata barred the claims based on privity and same transaction allegedly linking the force-majeure event to both actions.
- Virginia Supreme Court granted appeal to determine if res judicata barred second action under the then-existing Virginia law and Rule 1:6.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata barred the Second Virginia Action. | Caperton: not barred if different evidence/claims. | Massey: privity and same transaction bar subsequent action. | Not barred; res judicata does not apply. |
| Which test governs identity of causes of action—same evidence or same transaction? | Caperton: same evidence test. | Massey: same transaction test. | Same evidence test applied; second action not identical. |
| Are Caperton and Harman Development in privity with First Virginia Action plaintiffs? | Caperton/Harman argue privity not dispositive. | Massey relies on privity. | Addressed as unnecessary to decide. |
| Does Rule 1:6 retroactively apply to bar claims? | Rule 1:6 could preclude; not retroactive in this context. | Rule 1:6 supports bar if applicable. | Irrelevant to final disposition; not necessary to address. |
Key Cases Cited
- Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. (Caperton IV), 690 S.E.2d 322 (W. Va. 2009) (forum clause; res judicata and related issues discussed contextually)
- Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. (Caperton III), 556 U.S. 868 (U.S. 2009) (Supreme Court reversed WV court on due process concerns; campaign contributions and impartiality)
- Davis v. Marshall Homes, Inc., 265 Va. 159 (2003) (rejects transactional approach; supports same-evidence test concept)
- Haley v. Town of Abingdon, 233 Va. 210 (1987) (articulates same evidence vs same transaction framework)
- Sunrise Continuing Care, LLC v. Wright, 277 Va. 148 (2009) (breach of contract elements used to distinguish actions)