State ex rel. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Bedell, Judge
Annotate this CaseJanuary 1998 Term
__________
No. 24796
__________
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA EX REL.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE INDEMNITY
COMPANY, LARRY G. VERBOSKY and JEFFREY LAWRENTZ,
Petitioners
v.
HONORABLE THOMAS A. BEDELL, JUDGE OF
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HARRISON COUNTY, and
GERALDINE B. RILEY, d/b/a THE WHOLESALE AUTO OUTLET,
Respondents
__________________________________________________________________
PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION
WRIT DENIED
__________________________________________________________________
Submitted: February 17, 1998
Filed: July 8, 1998
Brent K.
Kesner David
J. Romano
Tanya M.
Kesner Michael
J. Romano
Ellen R.
Archibald Law
Offices of David J. Romano
Kesner, Kesner &
Bramble Clarksburg, West Virginia
Charleston, West
Virginia Attorneys for Respondents
Attorneys for Petitioners
The Opinion of the Court was delivered PER CURIAM.
JUSTICE McCUSKEY dissents and reserves the right to file a dissenting opinion.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. "In a
first-party bad faith action against an insurer, bifurcation and stay of the bad faith
claim from the underlying action are not mandatory. Under Rule 42(c) of the West Virginia
Rules of Civil Procedure a trial court, in furtherance of convenience, economy, or to
avoid prejudice, may bifurcate and stay a first-party bad faith cause of action against an
insurer." Syl. Pt. 2, Light v. Allstate Ins. Co., W. Va. , S.E.2d ( No.
24365 , July 7, 1998).
2. "Trial courts have discretion in determining whether to stay discovery in a first-party bad faith claim against an insurer that has been bifurcated and stayed. Factors trial courts should consider in determining whether to stay discovery when bifurcation has been ordered in a bad faith action include: (1) the number of parties in the case, (2) the complexity of the underlying case against the insurer, (3) whether undue prejudice would result to the insured if discovery is stayed, (4) whether a single jury will ultimately hear both bifurcated cases, (5) whether partial discovery is feasible on the bad faith claim and (6) the burden placed on the trial court by imposing a stay on discovery. The party seeking to stay discovery on the bad faith claim has the burden of proof on the issue." Syl. Pt. 3, Light v. Allstate Ins. Co., W. Va. , S.E.2d (No. 24365, July 7, 1998).
Per Curiam:See footnote 1 1
This original proceeding arises from a
first-party insurance action pending in the Circuit Court of Harrison County. Allstate
Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company, Larry G. Verbosky, and Jeffrey Lawrentz
(hereinafter collectively "Allstate") seek a writ of prohibition from this Court
directing the circuit judge to refrain from enforcing two orders entered December 4, 1997.
The orders in question denied Allstate's motion to bifurcate, into separate trials, the
bad faith and breach of contract claims of Geraldine B. Riley, d/b/a The Wholesale Auto
Outlet (hereinafter "Wholesale Auto"), and required Allstate to respond to
discovery requests relating to the bad faith claims. The issues presented are as follows:
In a first-party action against an insurance carrier, where an insured asserts both an
insurance contract claim and a "bad faith" claim for unfair settlement practices
under W.Va. Code § 33-11-4(9) [1985], must the trial court (1) bifurcate the
claims, (2) stay the trial of the bad faith claim, and (3) stay all discovery on the bad
faith claim pending resolution of the contract claim? We answered each of these questions
in the negative in Light v. Allstate Insurance Company, W. Va. , S.E.2d (No. 24365,
July, 7, 1998). Accordingly, pursuant to our holding in Light, the writ of
prohibition is denied.
I.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On or about June 23, 1995, Matthew
McKinney was involved in a motor vehicle accident while driving an automobile that he had
purchased from Wholesale Auto. McKinney's vehicle was insured by Allstate. Wholesale Auto
had partially financed McKinney's purchase of the car and was named as an additional
insured in the insurance policy.
Following the accident, McKinney and
Wholesale Auto's employees contacted Allstate agent Larry Verbosky and made claims for the
damage to McKinney's vehicle, which was a total loss. Allstate advised them that the
policy covering the vehicle had been terminated due to McKinney's failure to furnish a
copy of his driver's license. Allstate denied coverage on that basis.
For nearly two years after the
accident, Wholesale Auto tried to obtain compensation from Allstate for its loss. Allstate
remained unwilling to pay the claim. Having failed to procure payment under the policy,
Wholesale Auto filed a complaint against Allstate in the Circuit Court of Harrison County.
In its complaint, Wholesale Auto alleges breach of the insurance contract and fraud
(Counts I & III). Wholesale Auto also alleges that Allstate violated the Unfair Trade
Practices Act, W. Va. Code § 33-11-4, and handled Wholesale Auto's claim in bad
faith under the common lawSee footnote 2 2
and the Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Act, W. Va. Code § 33-11-4(9) (Count
II).
On July 17, 1997, Wholesale Auto served a
set of First Combined Discovery Requests on Allstate. Allstate answered the requests but
objected to certain requests relating to the bad faith claims. Allstate then filed a
Motion to Bifurcate and Stay, seeking bifurcation of the bad faith claims and a stay of
discovery on the bad faith claims pending resolution of the contract claim. Wholesale Auto
filed a written response to Allstate's motion, as well as a Motion to Compel Discovery and
Request for Sanctions.
A combined hearing on the parties'
motions was held on October 15, 1997. Subsequently, on December 4, 1997, the circuit judge
entered a Memorandum, Opinion and Order, denying Allstate's Motion to Bifurcate and Stay
and permitting discovery on the bad faith claims to proceed. On the same date, the circuit
judge also entered an Agreed Order, which stayed discovery with regard to the bad faith
claims in order to allow for the disposition of a petition for writ of prohibition, should
Allstate choose to file one. Allstate then instituted the present prohibition proceeding,
seeking to have this Court prohibit enforcement of the circuit court's December 4, 1997
orders.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The appropriate standard of review upon a
petition for writ of prohibition was recently recited by this Court in State ex rel. W.
Va. Fire & Cas. v. Karl, 487 S.E.2d 336 (W. Va. 1997):
" ' "In determining whether to
grant a rule to show cause in prohibition when a court is not acting in excess of its
jurisdiction, this Court will look to the adequacy of other available remedies such as
appeal and to the over-all economy of effort and money among litigants, lawyers and
courts; however, this Court will use prohibition in this discretionary way to correct only
substantial, clear-cut, legal errors plainly in contravention of a clear statutory,
constitutional, or common law mandate which may be resolved independently of any disputed
facts and only in cases where there is a high probability that the trial will be
completely reversed if the error is not corrected in advance." Syllabus Point 1, Hinkle
v. Black, 164 W.Va. 112, 262 S.E.2d 744 (1979).' Syllabus Point 12, Glover v.
Narick, 184 W.Va. 381, 400 S.E.2d 816 (1990)." Syllabus Point 1, State ex rel.
Doe v. Troisi, 194 W.Va. 28, 459 S.E.2d 139 (1995).
Karl, 487 S.E.2d at 341 & Syl. Pt. 1; see also Syl. Pt. 1, State
ex rel. U. S. Fidelity and Guar. Co. v. Canady, 194 W. Va. 431, 460 S.E.2d 677 (1995).
In addition, we give questions of law and statutory interpretations a de novo
review. Karl, 487 S.E.2d at 341 (citing Syl. Pt. 1, Chrystal R. M. v. Charlie A.
L., 194 W.Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995)).
III.
DISCUSSION
The issues now before this Court are
whether an insured's first-party statutory bad faith claim against his or her insurer,
under W.Va. Code § 33-11-4(9) [1985], must be bifurcated from the insured's
contract claim against the insurer, and, if so, whether trial and discovery with regard to
the bad faith claim must be stayed pending resolution of the contract claim. We addressed
these precise issues in Light v. Allstate Insurance Company, W. Va. , S.E.2d (No.
24365, July 7, 1998), where we held in Syllabus Points 2 & 3:
2.
In a first-party bad faith action against an insurer, bifurcation and stay of the bad
faith claim from the underlying action are not mandatory. Under Rule 42(c) of the West
Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure a trial court, in furtherance of convenience, economy,
or to avoid prejudice, may bifurcate and stay a first-party bad faith cause of action
against an insurer.
3. Trial courts have discretion in determining whether to stay discovery in a first-party bad faith claim against an insurer that has been bifurcated and stayed. Factors trial courts should consider in determining whether to stay discovery when bifurcation has been ordered in a bad faith action include: (1) the number of parties in the case,
(2) the complexity of the underlying
case against the insurer, (3) whether undue prejudice would result to the insured if
discovery is stayed, (4) whether a single jury will ultimately hear both bifurcated cases,
(5) whether partial discovery is feasible on the bad faith claim and (6) the burden placed
on the trial court by imposing a stay on discovery. The party seeking to stay discovery on
the bad faith claim has the burden of proof on the issue.
Under our holding in Light,
bifurcation of Wholesale Auto's statutory bad faith claim from its contract claim was not
mandatory. Nor was the trial court constrained to stay the trial of the bad faith claim.
Furthermore, since the trial court decided against bifurcating the bad faith claim, the
question of staying discovery on that claim, a matter within the discretion of the trial
court under Light when bifurcation has been ordered, is moot. Therefore, we find no
error in the trial court's denial of Allstate's Motion to Bifurcate and Stay.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the writ of
prohibition is denied.
Writ
denied.
Footnote: 1 1 We point out that a per curiam opinion is not legal precedent. See Lieving v. Hadley, 188 W. Va. 197, 201 n.4, 423 S.E.2d 600, 604 n.4 (1992).
Footnote: 2 2 Although we express no opinion here regarding the existence of a first-party cause of action for common law bad faith, we point out that this Court recently held in Elmore v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, et al., No. 24634, slip op. (W. Va. June 22, 1998) (5-0 decision), that a third party has no cause of action against an insurance carrier for common law breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing or for common law breach of fiduciary duty.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.