For over two decades, the attorneys at Bailey & Wyant PLLC have been representing their clients while being ever mindful of their individual needs, goals, and economic interests. This past month our very own Managing Member, Charles R. Bailey had the opportunity to speak to the masses via virtual presentation reaching from coast to coast. The firm dominated Charleston's Backyard BBQ on the levee, sponsored a team to honor a cancer survivor, and attended a leadership institute. Please continue to read the latest news for you, and as always we thank you for your continued support.

David Wyant and Jason Pockl represented Farm Family Casualty Insurance Company in a declaratory judgment action regarding the applicability of an anti-stacking endorsement in a commercial liability policy. The anti-stacking endorsement was found to be applicable and barred Plaintiff from making claims pursuant to this liability policy where there was an equal policy that had already been addressed and exhausted.

The lower Court Judge in the United States District Court for Southern District of West Virginia found that the coverage limitation language was enforceable. This was affirmed by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. This week the Fourth Circuit denied Plaintiff's request for reconsideration for hearing en banc.

In a second matter, Mr. Wyant and Mr. Pockl represented Farm Family Casualty Insurance Company in a coverage matter and declaratory judgment action in the Circuit Court of Ohio County. The case was concluded by granting a Motion to Dismiss the insurer Farm Family Casualty Insurance Company.

The case pertained to a policy issued to the life estate holder who purchased the policy. The remainder of the ownership of the premises was through a trust for the benefit of the family of the fee owner. The house caught fire and was destroyed. The issue was who would receive the contents of the fire policy. The insurer provided payment for the loss to the party with the life estate interest and who purchased the insurance. The beneficiary of the Trust, who is the owner of the property requested a declaration that the Trust was to receive the policy benefits from the fire. However, the Court found that the life estate holder had an insurable interest and purchased the insurance policy. Additionally, the Court found that the trust and its primary beneficiary did not have standing to receive the policy benefits for the fire.

Samuel M. Bloom was nominated to attend the West Virginia Bar Foundation’s 11^th Annual Lawyer Leadership. The West Virginia Bar Foundation is the philanthropic organization for West Virginia’s legal profession and justice system and the Bar Foundation’s Lawyer Leadership Institute’s objective is to provide newer lawyers with specific education and professional training that will enable them to become leaders in the legal profession, in their communities, and in the State of West Virginia.

Bailey & Wyant PLLC is proudly sponsoring the 2023 West Virginia Airshow held August 26th and 27th at the Eastern West Virginia Reginal Airport. The Centennial Celebration will be held at Shepherd Field in Martinsburg, West Virginia. Tickets are on sale NOW.

For more information please visit, www.WVAirshow.com.

Several of Bailey & Wyant PLLC's Attorneys and Office Staff joined our very own Chrissy Hall for the Charleston Race for the Ribbon. The Charleston office raised funds in Chrissy's honor and to support the West Virginia Breast Health Initiative. It was a beautiful day for a 5K walk/race held at the State Capitol.

Bailey & Wyant PLLC certainly knows how to serve up some BBQ. Equity Member, James W. Marshall, III, and Member David J. Mincer went head to head again this year for the Best of Backyard BBQ.

On May 16, 2023, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals issued a memorandum decision in The City of Charleston vs. Robert Romaine. This is a particularly notable case as Bailey & Wyant Associate Samuel M. Bloom assisted in drafting the amicus curiae filed by the West Virginia Municipal League in support of the Petitioner, the City of Charleston, which ultimately prevailed before the Supreme Court of Appeals in a 5-0 decision.

At issue in the case was whether the City of Charleston was responsible for making repairs to a portion of Shannon Place, which is a road outside Charleston city limits. The circuit court determined that although Shannon Place was outside city limits, the City of Charleston assumed responsibility under West Virginia Code § 17-1-3. This section of the West Virginia Code provides that any road shall be conclusively presumed to have been established when it has been used by the public for a period of ten years or more, and public moneys or labor have been expended thereon, whether there be any record of its conveyance, dedication or appropriation to public use or not. In making its determination, the Circuit Court found that because the street was open to the public, was used by various delivery and service providers, that the city expended money and labor on the street, and that the city provided services including refuse collection, recycling, road maintenance, garbage collection, street sweeping, snow removal, and ice control, tree limb removal, and sewer services.

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals held that the Circuit Court erred because the City of Charleston never dedicated Shannon Place to public use. Relying on former precedent, the Supreme Court of Appeals determined that a city can only act outside its corporate limit when the Legislature has expressly granted that authority. Just because the City of Charleston had sporadically driven vehicles for refuse collection, recycling, road maintenance, street sweeping, snow removal, and tree limb removal, coupled with the provision of sewer services, it did not satisfy the requirements of West Virginia Code § 17-1-3. In reaching its conclusion, the Supreme Court of Appeals recognized that these activities were not authorized by the City of Charleston, as reflected in a memorandum from 1997, as well as holding that any activities performed on Shannon Place outside the corporate boundary of the City of Charleston were unnecessary to the exercise of the City of Charleston’s Authority within the city limits. As such, the Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded the case back to the circuit court. 

David Wyant and Ben Visnic represented West Liberty University in this West Virginia Human Rights Act age discrimination case. The Court granted West Liberty University's Motion for Summary Judgment finding that there was no evidence of age discrimination in filling two employment positions after Plaintiff's previous job had been eliminated. The factual determination that the Plaintiff was not interviewed or hired for these two subsequent administrative positions because of concerns over Plaintiff's ability to perform the job, her complaining about job specifications and her interfering with official committees' activities by raising these personnel occupational complaints were appropriate reasons for not offering the jobs to the Plaintiff and that Plaintiff failed to prove said reasons were a pretext to age discrimination. The matter is presently docketed on Appeal at the United States 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Click the link to view: DTCWV Defender Spring 2023

To discuss your case, e-mail us (baileywyant@gmail.com) or give us a call.