NOLAND v. VIRGINIA INSURANCE RECIPROCAL, et al., No. 34702 (DAVIS, J.)(September 24, 2009). Granting mixed relief from an order of the Circuit Court of Raleigh County that granted partial summary judgment in favor of Virginia Insurance Reciprocal and dismissed claims against the remaining appellees. Reviewing the plain language of the primary and excess insurance policies at issue to conclude that there was no language that extinguished VIR's duty to continue defending the appellant under the funds remaining in the excess policy after a settlement occurred, especially in light of the fact that the very purpose of the umbrella policy was to provide coverage once the primary policy limits had been exhausted, in addition to the fact that the clear language of the umbrella policy provides that it will defend the appellant if the limits of the primary policy are exhausted. Further concluding that the "other insurance" clause in the umbrella policy cannot be invoked to preclude its defense of the appellant after the date of the settlement. Concluding that the circuit court properly dismissed both statutory and common law bad faith claims on statute of limitations grounds. Holding in syllabus point 4 that: "[t]he one year statute of limitations contained in W. Va. Code 55-2-12(c) applies to a common law bad faith claim." Further holding, in syllabus point 5: "In a first-party bad faith claim that is based upon an insurer's refusal to defend, and is brought under W. Va. Code 33-11-4(9) and/or as a common law bad faith claim, the statute of limitations begins to run on the claim when the insured knows or reasonably should have known that the insured refused to defend him or her in an action."

STONE BROOKE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. SISSINNI, ASSESSOR OF BROOKE COUNTY, et al., No. 34423 -AND- HEATHERMOOR LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. ALONGI, ASSESSOR OF HANCOCK COUNTY, et al., No. 34424 -AND- PINE HAVEN LIMITED PARTNMERSHIP, et al. v. ADKINS, ASSESSOR OF CABELL COUNTY, et al., No. 34863 (DAVIS, J.)(Benjamin, J., concurring)(Ketchum, J., concurring)(September 24, 2009). In three consolidated cases arising from the Circuit Courts of Brooke, Hancock and Cabell Counties, addressing the proper method of assessing the value for purposes of ad valorem taxation of real property participating in the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program. Concluding that the Brooke and Hancock County Circuit Court orders properly upheld the assessor's selection of the cost approach as the most accurate method of appraising the properties at issue, but concluding that the lower court failed to address whether the assessors had analyzed each of the factors to be considered in the appraisal of commercial real property set forth in W. Va. C.S.R. 110-1P-2.1.1 to 2.1.4, and remanding for further proceedings. Reversing the Cabell County Circuit Court's order because the assessor presented substantial evidence to support his cost approach and the circuit court's order did not address whether the assessor had analyzed each of the required factors, and remanding for reinstatement of the cost approach appraisals and for review the correctness of the assessor's application of the required criteria.

JEFFERSON COUNTY CITIZENS FOR ECONOMIC PRESERVATION v. COUNTY COMMISSION OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, et al., No. 34583 (KETCHUM, J.)(September 24, 2009). Reversing an order of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County that granted summary judgment in favor of a group that challenged the adoption of amendments to the county zoning ordinance that lowered the permitted housing density in the county's rural district. Holding that because the land use ordinance concerning amendments to the county's comprehensive plan relied solely upon a statutory scheme previously repealed, the ordinance is without authority to mandate the procedures to be followed by the county commission and planning commission in adopting or rejecting proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan and related ordinances. Remanding for reinstatement of the 2005 amendments to the ordinance.

CARPENTER v. LUKE, No. 34497 (Per Curiam)(September 24, 2009). Affirming an order of the Circuit Court of Harrison County that denied a motion to alter or amend judgment and a motion for new trial in a property dispute. Holding that the trial court properly entered judgment as a matter of law in favor of the plaintiff below on the issue of disputed ownership of certain real estate. Concluding that the trial court properly interpreted the context associated with the phrase "middle of the public road" set forth in the deed description, and further was correct in concluding that the defendant below's father could not have been a bona fide purchaser of land that was not included in his property description.

On October 9, 2008, the Court approved four rule changes related to mass litigation that become effective immediately. Those changes are:

1. Amendments to Trial Court Rule 26: These amendments relate to the Mass Litigation Panel, referral of cases, and conduct of business before the Panel, among other changes. An engrossed version of TCR 26 is also available.
2. New Trial Court Rule 15: This is a new rule that will allow the implementation of electronic filing and service in cases referred to the Mass Litigation Panel under Trial Court Rule 26. Electronic filing and service will not be used to initiate cases, and implementation will be triggered by entry of an order by the Panel (See TCR 15.02).
3. Amendment to Trial Court Rule 16.05(a): This amendment adds mass litigation to a list of exceptions from time standards otherwise applicable in civil litigation.
4. Amendment to Rule of Civil Procedure 5(e): This amendment enables electronic filing and service for post-complaint filings, following the model used to enable filing by facsimile.

In addition, the Court approved an amendment to Rule of Civil Procedure 3(a) that becomes effective on November 10, 2008. The amendment adds a second sentence to the existing rule, as follows: "(a) Complaint. [~] A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court. For a complaint naming more than one individual plaintiff not related by marriage, a derivative or fiduciary relationship, each plaintiff shall be assigned a separate civil action number and be docketed as a separate civil action and be charged a separate fee by the clerk of a circuit court." For additional background on this rule, see syllabus points 3 and 4 of CABLE v. HATFIELD, 202 W.Va. 638, 505 S.E.2nd 701 (Davis, C.J.)(July 7, 1998).

Summaries of the first seven opinions issued in the September 2008 term of court were posted today. One opinion, Savarese v. Allstate, resolved a case that was argued in the January term of court. Unless otherwise stated, in all opinions issued this term, Justice Albright is not participating and Senior Status Justice McHugh is sitting by temporary assignment.

The final day of arguments in the September term of court is Tuesday, October 29.

IN RE: SAMANTHA S. AND HOPE S., No. 33713 (Per Curiam)(Sept. 26, 2008). Granting mixed relief from an order of the Circuit Court of Mingo County that terminated parental rights and awarded physical custody to the paternal grandparents. Holding that the circuit court correctly terminated parental rights and awarded custody to the paternal grandparents. Holding that the circuit court erred in granting unsupervised visitation to the maternal grandparents, and remanding for entry of an order terminating the visitation rights of the maternal grandparents.

SAVARESE v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO., et al., No. 33443 (BENJAMIN, J.)(Starcher, J., dissenting)(McHugh, S.S.J., not participating)(September 26, 2008). Affirming an order of the Circuit Court of Ohio County that dismissed a first-party bad faith action, pursuant to W.Va. Code 56-1-1(c), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Holding, in syllabus point 2, that: "Pursuant to West Virginia Code 56-1-1(c) (2003), a nonresident plaintiff must establish that all or a substantial part of the acts giving rise to his or her claims occurred in West Virginia in order to establish that venue is appropriate in this state where no claims are asserted against a West Virginia resident. In an action arising from the failure to pay a nonresident plaintiff's medical payment claims arising under a contract of insurance entered into and governed by the law of another state, the nonresident plaintiff's retention of a West Virginia attorney and communications to that attorney in West Virginia that the medical payment claims have been denied are insufficient, standing alone, to satisfy the requirements of West Virginia Code 56-1-1(c)(2003)." (Note: This case was argued in the January 2008 term of court.)

EASTHAM v. CITY of HUNTINGTON, No. 33807 (Per Curiam)(Benjamin, J., concurring)(McHugh, S.S.J., not participating)(Sept. 30, 2008). Reversing an order of the Circuit Court of Cabell County. Holding that a city ordinance requiring city employees to be residents of the city did not conflict with constitutional and statutory protections provided to civil service employees, and construing the ordinance to require a pre-disciplinary hearing that comports with constitutional and statutory requirements.

LAWYER DISCIPLINARY BOARD v. MARK A. BLEVINS, No. 33281 (Per Curiam)(Starcher, J., concurring)(September 26, 2008). Imposing harsher discipline than recommended by the Hearing Panel Subcommittee, after concluding that "the magnitude of respondent Blevins' actions, which included, at a minimum, recklessly encouraging a convicted felon to intimidate, by violence or the threat of violence, certain former clients who owed the respondent money, warrants the annulment of the respondent's license to practice in this State." Imposing additional conditions to be satisfied prior to reinstatement.