White v. Wyeth
227 W. Va. 131
W. Va.2010Background
- Respondents sued under WVCCPA for alleged deceptive practices in promoting prescription HRT drugs.
- Statute allows private actions for ascertainable loss caused by unlawful acts, with no express reliance requirement.
- Lower court held WVCCPA does not require pleading or proof of reliance; found question of reliance to be controlled by causation.
- Court reformulated the certified question to ask whether proof of reliance is required to satisfy causation in WVCCPA private actions.
- Court noted remedial purpose of WVCCPA, but limited its scope to prescription drug purchases and remanded for dismissal consistent with new point of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 'as a result of' require reliance proof for causation under WVCCPA? | Dennison argues no reliance proof required; only causation. | Wyeth contends reliance is required to prove causation. | Yes; reliance must be proved for causation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Findley v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 213 W.Va. 80 (2002) (standing requires causal connection; supports causation element)
- Webb v. Sessler, 135 W.Va. 341 (1950) (proximate cause defined; causal connection necessary)
- Cox v. Amick, 195 W.Va. 608 (1995) (legislative intent; liberal construction of remedial statutes)
- Meadows v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 207 W.Va. 203 (1999) (cardinal rule of statutory construction; give effect to all parts of statute)
- Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co., 553 U.S. 639 (2008) (reliance not required in all fraud-like claims; proximate cause analysis varies)