738 S.E.2d 1
W. Va.2012Background
- In Oct. 2008 Jenkins, employed by Bombardier, was injured in a crash with Stanton, employed by the City of Elkins.
- Jenkins received workers’ compensation benefits totaling $170,823.92 for this injury.
- Jenkins and wife sued the City, Stanton, and insurers on Apr. 29, 2010, serving Westfield with notice of the complaint.
- Westfield answered and asserted counterclaims, cross-claims, and third-party claims against Bombardier and National.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, Stanton, and National based on immunity; upheld government vehicle and other exclusions for Bombardier/Westfield; and denied auto medical payments.
- The West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment for City, Stanton, and National was proper due to statutory immunity | Jenkins urged immunity should not bar claims | City/Stanton/National relied on immunity under W.VaCode §29‑12A‑5(a)(11) and policy wording | Affirmed as to immunity-based grant of summary judgment |
| Whether UM coverage is triggered when the tortfeasor has immunity | UM should apply if tortfeasor is immune | Immunity should not block UM if fault present | Uninsured motorist coverage is triggered by immunity, affirming UM applicability |
| Meaning of the phrase ‘legally entitled to recover’ | Phrase should allow UM where fault established irrespective of immunity | Phrase may require judgment recoverable from tortfeasor | Adopted majority rule: ‘legally entitled to recover’ liberal, permits UM where fault/damages shown despite immunity |
| Whether government owned vehicle exclusions violate public policy | Exclusions unjustly limit UM coverage for government-owned vehicles | Exclusions permissible if not conflicting with statute or public policy; supported by Deel | Government owned vehicle exclusions void and unenforceable above minimum UM limits; policy must provide statutory UM coverage |
| Whether exclusion precluding auto medical payments for employee injuries is valid | Exclusion should be invalid or limited by Benyo fairness | Exclusion valid under policy language; subrogation laws apply | Employer’s auto medical payments exclusion is limited to excess over workers’ compensation subrogation; recovery allowed up to subrogation amount |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Dell v. Town of Gauley Bridge, 188 W.Va. 596 (1992) (immunity statute interpretation; stare decisis respect for statutory construction)
- Dea l v. Sweeney, 181 W.Va. 460 (1989) (governmental immunity context; policy exclusions consistent with statute)
- Wisman v. William J. Rhodes & Shamblin Stone, Inc., 191 W.Va. 542 (1994) (workers’ comp immunity; uninsured/underinsured motorist recovery limits)
- Henry v. Benyo, 203 W.Va. 172 (1998) (underinsured motorist benefits in employment context; equity/benefits stacking)
- Youler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 183 W.Va. 556 (1990) (public policy favoring full compensation under UM coverage)
- Perkins v. Doe, 177 W.Va. 84 (1986) (remedial construction of uninsured motorist statute; liberal interpretation)
- Keffer v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 153 W.Va. 813 (1970) (policy language interpreted against ambiguous terms; plain meaning controls)
- Bender v. Glendenning, 219 W.Va. 174 (2006) (policy language and immunity preservation; relevance to declaratory action)
- Adkins v. Meador, 201 W.Va. 148 (1997) (remedial construction; uninsured motorist coverage liberally construed)