Opinion
No. 20-1452
03-30-2023
UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Greg Allen BALL, Defendant - Appellant, and Milton Hardware, LLC; Builders Discount, LLC; Rodney Perry, Defendants.
ARGUED: Stephen Brooks Farmer, FARMER, CLINE & CAMPBELL, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Susan Renee Snowden, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Jennifer D. Roush, FARMER, CLINE & CAMPBELL, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:17-cv-02002) ARGUED: Stephen Brooks Farmer, FARMER, CLINE & CAMPBELL, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Susan Renee Snowden, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Jennifer D. Roush, FARMER, CLINE & CAMPBELL, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded following receipt of answer to certified question of law to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Judge Niemeyer wrote the opinion, in which Judge Wilkinson and Judge Agee joined. NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:
In this protracted insurance coverage case, the district court held on remand from us, United Fin. Cas. Co. v. Ball, 941 F.3d 710 (4th Cir. 2019), that the Employee Indemnification and Employer's Liability exclusion in United Financial Casualty Company's liability insurance policy was "unenforceable up to the minimum insurance coverage [of $25,000] required by state law but operative as to any amount above the state's mandatory minimum limits." United Fin. Cas. Co. v. Milton Hardware, LLC, 612 F.Supp.3d 613, 619 (S.D. W. Va. 2020). In effect, the court held that Rodney Perry — a permissive user of a vehicle insured by the policy who injured Greg Ball while operating the vehicle — was entitled to coverage under United Financial's policy up to the mandatory minimum amount of $25,000, as specified by West Virginia Code § 17D-4-2. The court held further, however, that as a result of the policy's Employee Indemnification and Employer's Liability exclusion, United Financial did not have to provide any additional coverage, even though the policy otherwise afforded up to $1 million in liability coverage to permissive users.
Ball appealed, contending that the exclusion was entirely invalid, such that United Financial was required to provide Perry, the driver, with the full $1 million coverage offered by the policy for his liability to Ball.
By order dated February 23, 2022, we certified the question to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, asking:
When an exclusion in an automobile liability insurance policy violates West Virginia Code § 33-6-31(a) because it would deny coverage to a permissive user of an insured automobile, must the insurance company provide the permissive user with the full liability coverage available under the policy or the minimum liability coverage required by the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Law, W. Va. Code § 17D-1-1 et seq.?United Fin. Cas. Co. v. Ball, 31 F.4th 164, 165 (4th Cir. 2022). By an opinion dated November 17, 2022, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia answered the certified question, holding that "United Financial must afford the permissive user with coverage up to the full limits of liability coverage available under the insurance policy for any damages proven" and rejecting United Financial's argument that the limits should be restricted to the $25,000 minimum required by West Virginia Code § 17D-4-2(b). Ball v. United Fin. Cas. Co., — S.E.2d —, —, 2022 WL 17038445, at *1 (W. Va. Nov. 17, 2022).
On the basis of that holding, we now vacate the district court's order of March 31, 2020, and remand with instructions to require United Financial to afford coverage up to the policy's $1 million limit.
VACATED AND REMANDED