Tug Valley Pharmacy, LLC v. All Below, 773 S.E.2d 627

Twenty-nine plaintiffs sued physicians and three pharmacies, alleging negligent prescribing/dispensing of controlled substances that caused addiction and related harms.
Plaintiffs admitted significant illicit conduct tied to their drug use (possession, diversion, doctor‑shopping, fraud) and largely invoked the Fifth Amendment in depositions about other drug sources.
Some Mountain Medical Center physicians and one pharmacist faced criminal or disciplinary actions; not all defendant pharmacies were disciplined.
Defendants moved for summary judgment invoking the "wrongful conduct" (unlawful‑acts) rule and in pari delicto to bar recovery based on plaintiffs’ admitted illegal conduct.
The circuit court certified two questions to the West Virginia Supreme Court: (1) whether a plaintiff may maintain an action that depends on the plaintiff’s own illegal/immoral act; and (2) whether in pari delicto can bar tort claims.
The Supreme Court held that plaintiffs’ wrongdoing is for the jury under West Virginia’s comparative‑fault regime and answered Question 1 affirmatively; Question 2 was left unanswered as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May a plaintiff maintain a tort action when proof requires reliance on the plaintiff’s own illegal/immoral act?	Plaintiffs: their wrongdoing should be considered in apportioning fault under comparative negligence, not as a per se bar.	Defendants: adopt the wrongful conduct rule — illegal conduct that contributes to injury bars recovery.	Court: No per se common‑law bar; apply comparative fault. Plaintiffs’ misconduct is for the jury to weigh.
May the doctrine of in pari delicto be used to bar tort claims here?	Plaintiffs: in pari delicto is typically contractual/transactional and not applicable to tort claims; comparative fault controls.	Defendants: in pari delicto should prevent recovery when plaintiff is equally at fault.	Court: Question rendered moot by ruling on wrongful conduct; not answered.
How should courts treat competing public‑policy concerns (deterring crime vs. deterring tortious conduct by defendants)?	Plaintiffs: barring suits rewards tortfeasors and undermines compensatory justice; comparative fault best balances policy.	Defendants: wrongful conduct rule prevents courts from aiding wrongdoers and preserves public confidence.	Court: Comparative negligence better preserves jury fact‑finding and prevents immunizing tortfeasors; policy issues are for jury/legislature.

Orzel v. Scott Drug Co., 449 Mich. 550, 537 N.W.2d 208 (Mich. 1995) (articulates the modern wrongful conduct/unlawful‑acts rule)
Greenwald v. Van Handel, 311 Conn. 370, 88 A.3d 467 (Conn. 2014) (applies wrongful‑conduct principle to bar recovery when injury is direct result of plaintiff’s criminal act)
Bradley v. Appalachian Power Co., 163 W. Va. 332, 256 S.E.2d 879 (W. Va. 1979) (adopts modified comparative negligence in West Virginia)
Price v. Purdue Pharma Co., 920 So.2d 479 (Miss. 2006) (discusses nexus required between illegal act and injury under wrongful‑conduct doctrine)
Barker v. Kallash, 63 N.Y.2d 19, 468 N.E.2d 39 (N.Y. 1984) (addresses wrongful‑conduct bar and its relation to comparative negligence)
Dugger v. Arredondo, 408 S.W.3d 825 (Tex. 2013) (declines broad wrongful‑acts rule and applies proportionate responsibility)