West Virginia Employers' Mutual Insurance v. Summit Point Raceway Associates, Inc.
719 S.E.2d 830
W. Va.2011Background
- Summit Point, insured by BrickStreet, faced a deliberate intent claim by an employee in 2007; BrickStreet denied coverage citing an exclusion.
- Summit Point paid defense costs and settled the deliberate intent action; Summit Point later sued BrickStreet for breach of contract, bad faith, and related claims.
- The circuit court granted partial summary judgment to Summit Point, holding BrickStreet must offer deliberate intent coverage commercially and waives could be inferred.
- An Agreed Judgment Order awarded Summit Point $1,201,080.30 in damages and costs; BrickStreet appealed, challenging the scope of coverage and interpretation.
- BrickStreet argued §23-4C-6 did not require an express bias-type offer and that the policy language was unambiguous.
- The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals reversed, concluding BrickStreet was not required to make an express Bias-type offer, and that the policy language excludes deliberate intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §23-4C-6 require an express Bias-type offer? | Summit Point: Bias requires express offer and informed waiver when statute mandates optional coverage. | BrickStreet: §23-4C-6 does not require an express offer; merely to make coverage available on request. | No; statute does not impose Bias-type offer. |
| Is the policy language ambiguous regarding deliberate intent coverage? | Summit Point: Ambiguities in the policy support reasonable expectations of deliberate intent coverage. | BrickStreet: Policy language clearly excludes deliberate intent; exclusions are conspicuous and unambiguous. | Policy language plain; no deliberate intent coverage. |
| Does the exclusion clause conspicuously and clearly exclude deliberate intent under §23-4-2? | Summit Point: Exclusion references §23-4-2 but is ambiguous in scope; supports coverage under reasonable expectations. | BrickStreet: The exclusion is conspicuous and unambiguous, excluding intentional acts and all §23-4-2 liability. | Exclusion is conspicuous, plain, and clear; no coverage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bias v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 179 W. Va. 125, 365 S.E.2d 789 (1987) (where an offer of optional coverage is required by statute, insurer must prove effective offer and informed rejection)
- Luikart v. Valley Brook Concrete & Supply, Inc., 216 W. Va. 748, 613 S. E.2d 896 (2005) (supercedes Bias by statute in stop-gap coverage contexts)
- Keffer v. Prudential Ins. Co., 153 W. Va. 813, 172 S.E.2d 714 (1970) (policy language must be given its plain, ordinary meaning when unambiguous)
- National Mut. Ins. Co. v. McMahon & Sons, Inc., 177 W. Va. 734, 356 S.E.2d 488 (1987) (reasonableness of expectations in insurance contracts)