Link to PDF file
No. 34749 - Keith West and Susan West v. The West Virginia Department of
Transportation, Division of Highways, a department or agency of the
State of West Virginia; and Paul A. Mattox, in his capacity as the
Commissioner of Highways
Davis, J., concurring, in part, and dissenting, in part:
I concur with the majority's decision to reverse the circuit court's rulings
regarding the validity of the State's policy of insurance in this case and to remand this matter
to determine whether, in fact, said policy complies with the statutory signature requirements
set forth in W. Va. Code § 33-12-11 (2002) (Repl. Vol. 2003).
However, I dissent and write separately to reiterate my objections to the
majority's interpretation of Endorsement Number 7 in Wrenn v. West Virginia Department
of Transportation, Division of Highways, ___ W. Va. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (No. 34717 Nov.
2, 2009), and the application of that decision to the facts of the case sub judice. Although
the majority opinion does not resolve the issues related to Endorsement Number 7 presented
in the instant appeal, the opinion alludes to this Court's recent decision in Wrenn and
suggests that, if the policy is determined to be valid and the construction of Endorsement
Number 7 is again placed in issue, the question of whether the Division of Highways's
failure to inspect the public highway at issue herein should be resolved in accordance with
Wrenn. See Majority Op. at 10 n.10. I disagreed with the majority's construction of
Endorsement Number 7 as precluding coverage for the DOH's failure to inspect in Wrenn,
and, to the extent this erroneous construction could be applied to the facts of the case sub
judice, I reiterate my objections.
Accordingly, I respectfully concur, in part, and dissent, in part.