Stephen Upton v. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc.
16-0354
| W. Va. | Apr 21, 2017Background
- On Aug 24, 2009 Upton discovered forced exterior-door damage and a small crack in a kitchen sink pipe; he reported both to his insurer, Liberty Mutual.
- Upton’s homeowner policy had a $5,000 per-occurrence deductible; Liberty ultimately treated the door damage and the water damage as two separate occurrences and applied the deductible to each.
- Two repair estimates: Upton’s contractor (Blankenship) estimated ~$1,586 for doors and ~$22,372.66 for kitchen (including mold inspection and specialty granite work); Liberty’s contractor estimated lower amounts and Liberty paid $11,175.07 (after applying deductible) for the water damage and paid nothing for the door damage (below deductible).
- Upton sued (2010) for breach of contract, bad faith, fraud, and professional negligence, alleging Liberty tried to force a separate claim and then treated losses as two occurrences to apply the deductible twice.
- After discovery and motions, the circuit court granted Liberty partial summary judgment (March 11, 2016) finding no rational jury could find for Upton on the claim-mishandling causes of action and calculating maximum breach-of-contract recovery as $6,197.59 plus interest; Liberty then confessed judgment and tendered that amount and the trial court dismissed the case with prejudice (April 27, 2016).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper on claims alleging mishandling of a single insurance claim (bad faith/fraud/prof negligence) | Upton: Liberty improperly encouraged a separate claim and then treated losses as two occurrences to apply deductible twice, supporting UTPA violations and bad-faith claims | Liberty: No evidence vandalism caused the water damage; therefore treating them as separate occurrences was reasonable and lawful | Court: Affirmed summary judgment for Liberty — evidence shows water damage inconsistent with vandalism, so no UTPA violation and no rational jury could find for Upton |
| Proper characterization of occurrences and application of deductible | Upton: Both damages were discovered simultaneously and should be a single occurrence | Liberty: No evidence the vandal(s) entered and caused the pipe damage; distinct occurrences justified separate deductible application | Court: Affirmed Liberty’s treatment as two occurrences; deductible properly applied to door damage and separately to water damage |
| Amount of recoverable breach-of-contract damages | Upton: Court should include additional costs he claims (inspection fee, other items) and contest calculation | Liberty: Court should use evidence, existing payments, and deductibles to compute maximum recoverable amount | Court: Construing facts for Upton, used Blankenship’s higher estimate for kitchen; subtracted $5,000 deductible and payments already made; maximum recovery $6,197.59 plus interest — affirmed |
| Whether dismissal after confession of judgment was improper while judge-disqualification motion pending | Upton: Dismissal while motion to disqualify was pending violated Trial Court Rule 17.01(b)(1) and required invalidation | Liberty: Confession of judgment and tender mooted further proceedings; dismissal proper | Court: Denied disqualification and held any entry while motion pending was harmless error; dismissal after confession of judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Painter v. Peavy, 192 W.Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994) (summary-judgment standard)
- Dodrill v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 201 W.Va. 1, 491 S.E.2d 1 (1996) (UTPA single-claim private-action standard requiring pervasive or repeated conduct)
- Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc., 194 W.Va. 52, 459 S.E.2d 329 (1995) (summary judgment burden shifting and need to avoid precipitous rulings; Rule 56(f) considerations)
- Sneberger v. Morrison, 235 W.Va. 654, 776 S.E.2d 156 (2015) (elements of breach of contract)
- Riffe v. Home Finders Associates, Inc., 205 W.Va. 216, 517 S.E.2d 313 (1999) (insurance contract interpretation is a legal question)
- Shenandoah Sales & Service, Inc. v. Assessor of Jefferson County, 228 W.Va. 762, 724 S.E.2d 733 (2012) (harmless-error analysis regarding judge actions after disqualification motion)