Trull v. West Virginia Mutual Insurance Company
3:24-cv-00202
S.D.W. VaMay 15, 2025Background
- Dr. Devan Trull, D.O., was sued for medical malpractice and insured under a policy issued by West Virginia Mutual Insurance Company (WVMIC) with limits of $1M per claim.
- WVMIC initially provided Dr. Trull’s legal defense and later, MagMutual Insurance Company acquired WVMIC and assumed control of the litigation.
- MagMutual refused to settle within policy limits, resulting in a jury verdict against Dr. Trull of $1.9M, later reduced by $500,000 due to a separate settlement, leaving over $400,000 unpaid after WVMIC paid $1M.
- Dr. Trull filed claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and other related claims against both insurers.
- Both defendants filed motions to dismiss the various claims against them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of Contract (WVMIC) | WVMIC failed to fully defend and satisfy judgment as required by the policy | Provided defense and paid policy limit; no breach committed | Dismissed – Dr. Trull failed to plead breach |
| Implied Covenant of Good Faith & Fair Dealing | Breach tied to underlying contract breach | No cause of action separate from breach of contract; dismissal follows | Dismissed alongside breach of contract claim |
| Statutory Bad Faith (WVMIC) | Claim not addressed by WVMIC in motion; asserted in response | Dr. Trull did not sufficiently plead this claim | No decision – not fully briefed |
| Shamblin Claim / Veil Piercing (MagMutual) | MagMutual controlled litigation and ignored corporate separateness; veil can be pierced | Not a party to insurance contract; alter ego allegations are conclusory | Not dismissed – sufficiently pled for this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard requires plausibility, not mere possibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaints must contain enough facts for a plausible claim)
- Laya v. Erin Homes, Inc., 352 S.E.2d 93 (W. Va. 1986) (sets forth test for piercing corporate veil in West Virginia)
- Mills v. USA Mobile Commc'ns, Inc., 438 S.E.2d 1 (W. Va. 1993) (explains when veil-piercing may be appropriate for inequity)
- Gaddy Eng'g Co. v. Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love, LLP, 746 S.E.2d 568 (W. Va. 2013) (implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is not an independent claim)