Respondent's Brief
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
NO. 18-0725 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST MICHAEL )). MICHAEL, Administrator ofthe Estate of Jack D. Michael, et al. Petitioners, v. CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY, Respondent. On Certified Qnestions from the United States Conrt of Appeals for the Fonrth Circnit Record No. 17-1564 BRiEF OF RESPONDENT CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY W. Henry Jernigan (WVSB No.1884) Alex M. Greenberg (WVSB No. 12061) William E. Robinson(WVSB No. 3139) Christopher M. Jones (WVSB No. 11689) DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP 707 Virginia Street E., Snite 1300 215 Don Knotts Blvd, Snite 310 Charleston, WV 25301 Morgantown, WV 26501 Telephone: (304) 357-9912 Telephone: (304) 296-1100 Facsimile: (304) 357-0919 Facsimile: (304) 296-6116 COUNSEL FOR CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................. .iii I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1 II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ..................................................................... 3 A. STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................ .3 1. The November 1968 Explosion and Related Investigation .................. 3 2. The September 1970 Layne Memorandum ..................................... .4 3. MSHA's March 1990 Report .................................................... .5 4. Layne's Availability Regarding the September 1970 Memorandum ....................................................................... 6 5. Three Prior Civil Actions Filed on Behalf of Petitioner Henderson Estate and the Estates of Other Miners ............................. 7 6. The Current Civil Action .......................................................... 9 B. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORy ............................................. 11 III. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................... 12 IV. STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ANDDECISION .................... 14 V. ARGUMENT ....................................................................................... 14 A. Standard of Review ................................................................................................ 14 B. Certified Question No.1 must be answered in the Negative ................................ 14 1. Petitioners have no Cognizable Common Law Fraudulent Concealment Claim for Damages Occasioned by the Deaths of their Decedents .................................................................................. 14 i a. No Cause of Action for Wrongful Death Exists in West Virginia Separate and Apart from the Wrongful Death Statute ................................................................ .14 b. Petitioners' Claims are governed by the Historical Rule that the Two-Year Limitation upon the Bringing of an Action for Wrongful Death is all Integral Part of the Statute Itself, and Creates a Condition Precedent to the Bringing of such an Action ................................................ 16 c. Fraudulent Concealment, Even as a Tolling Doctrine, did not Apply to Wrongful Death Actions until Miller was Decidedinl991 ............................................................ 18 d. Kessel did not Recognize or Create a Common Law Wrongful Death Action Separate and Apart from the Wrongful Death Statute ................................................... 19 e. Kessel cannot be Retroactively Applied to Petitioners' Decedents' Alleged Wrongful Deaths in 1968 ........................ 22 f. Independent of the Bradley Factors, Kessel cannot be Retroactively Applied to this Case .......................................23 g. The Bradley Factors Prohibit Retroactive Application of Kessel to Petitioners' Claims ............................................ 24 C. Under the Discovery Rule, if Applicable, the Statue of Limitations for Petitioners' Fraudulent Concealment Claims began to run when Petitioners Learned that CCC allegedly concealed the Acts of an Unknown Agent or Employee that resulted in the Deaths of other Mine Employees, and was not Tolled until the Exact Identities of Sacchetti andlor Kovarbasich were Known to Petitioners ............................................................................................. 26 1. Even if the Discovery Rule is Applied, the Statute of Limitations on Petitioners' Claim against CCC Began to Run when Petitioners Knew or should have Known ofthe Bridging of the COll1lection between the Mod's Run Fan and the FEMCO Alarm System .............................................................. 26 2. Even if the Discovery Rule might Toll the RUll1ling of the Statute of Limitations, it cannot be Retroactively Applied to Petitioners' Claims ................ 36 VI. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 39 11 Table of Authorities Cases Allen v. Raleigh-Wyoming Mining Co., 117 W.Va. 631, 634,186 S.E.2d 612, 613 (1936) ............................................................ .33 Baldwin v. Butcher, 184 S.E.2d 428,429 (W.Va. 1971) ............................................. 15, 16,20,25 Board ofRegents v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478, 487, 64 L. Ed. 2d 440, 100 S. Ct. 1790 (1980) ........................................... 37 Bonham v. Weinraub., 413 Fed. Appx. 615, 616 (4th Cir. 2011) ................................................... 39 BPL Inc. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 773 S.E. 2d 647, 651 (W.Va. 2015) ............................................................................. 23, 24 Bradley v. Appalachian Power Co., 256 S.E.2d 879 (W. Va. 1979) .................................................... 22,23,24,25,26,38,39 Bradshaw v. Souls by, 558 S.E.2d 681 (W. Va. 2001) ............................... 13, 24, 25, 36, 37, 38, 39 Brewer v. Appalachian Constructors, Inc., 135 W. Va. 739, 65 S.E.2d 87 (1951) ................................................................................ 33 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 690 S.E.2d 322,350 (W.Va. 2009) ......................... 23, 24 Cart v. Marcum, 188 W. Va. 241, 245, 423 S.E.2d 644, 648 (1992) ........................................... .36 Carter v. Primecare Med., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219578, *23 (S.D. W.Va. Nov. 2, 2017) .................................... .31 Childs v. Haussecker, 974 S.W. 31, 40 (Texas 1998) ................................................................... 32 City ofAtl. City v. Zemurray St. Capital, LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63352, *2 (D. N.J. April25, 2017) .............................................. 31 Crowe v. Bolduc, 365 F.3d 86, 93 (1st Cir. 2004) ......................................................................... 23 Currence, et al. v. Consolidation Coal Co., et al., Civil Action No: 78-0044-C (H) (N.D. W. Va. 1978) ................................................... 8,32 Davey v. Estate ofHaggerty, 637 S.E.2d 350, 354 (W.Va. 2006) ................................................. 35 Dole v. Local 1942, Int'! Bhd olElec. Workers, 870 F.2d 368,372 (7th Cir. 1989) ...................................................................................... 21 iii Doran v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2012 Us. Dist. LEXIS42805, *1 (D. Haw. Mar. 28, 2012) .............................................. 31 Dunn v. Rockwell, 689 S.E.2d 255 (W. Va. 2009) ............................................................ 27, 33, 37 Gaither v. City Hosp., Inc., 487 S.E.2d 901 (W.Va. 1997) .................................................... .27, 28 Gould v. United States Dep 't ofHealth & Human Servs., 905 F.2d 738 (4th Cir. 1990) ............................................................................................ .37 Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 110 (1945) .................................................................. .39 Hamilton v. 1st Source Bank, 928 F.2d 86, 89 (4thCir. 1990) ...................................................... 37 Harless v. First Nat 'I Bank, 289 S.E.2d 692 (W. Va. 1982) ......................................................... 34 Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776,784 (4th Cir. 1999) ..................................................................................... 30 Huggins v. Hospital Board ofMonongalia County, 270 S.E.2d 160 (1980) ........................................................................................... 17, 18, 37 Humble Oil & Ref Co. v. Lane, 152 W. Va. 578, 583, 165 S.E.2d 379,383 (1969) ............................................................ 36 In re Estate ofKovarbasich, 2016 W. Va. LEXIS 828 (Mem. Dec. W. Va. November 10,2016) ................................... 9 Kaznoski v. Consolidation Coal Co., 368 F. Supp. 1022 (W.D. Pa. 1974) ............................................... 7,8,9,14,28,32,33,35 Kesselv. Leavitt, 511 S.E.2d 720 (W.Va. 1998) ............... 12,13,19,20,21,22,24,25,26,27,38 Kline v. Turner, 87 Cal.App.4th 1369,1375,105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 699 (2001) .......................................... .31, 32 Lambert v. Ensign Manufacturing Co., 26 S.E. 431 (W.Va. 1896) ............................................... 17 Lengyel v. Lint, 167 W. Va. 272, 280 S.E.2d 66 (W.Va. 1981) .................................................... 27 Light v. Allstate Ins. Co., 506 S.E.2d 64 (W. Va. 1998) ................................................................ 14 Mandolidis v. Elkins Industries, Inc., 161 W. Va. 695,246 S.E.2d 907 (1970)