CHARLESTON — The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals ruled that a lower court failed to properly apply immunity and remanded a case to fix those issues.
The case involves multiple petitioners including police officers from Ranson and Charles Town, and their respective cities, appealing a Jefferson Circuit Court order that partially granted their motion to dismiss a complaint by Christopher Sullivan.
Justice Bill Wooton authored the majority opinion. Chief Justice Tim Armstead and Justice Haley Bunn concurred and filed a separate opinion.
"After careful review of the briefs of the parties, their oral arguments, the appendix record, and the applicable law, we reverse the circuit court’s decision and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion," Wooton wrote in the May 9 majority opinion. "Insofar as none of the petitioners’ assigned errors address the overarching error in the circuit court’s decision, we sua sponte find that the court committed plain error by basing its immunity decisions on common law qualified immunity principles which are only applicable to the state, its agencies, officials, and employees, rather than applying the provisions of the Tort Claims Act, which govern immunity for the claims asserted against the petitioners as they are undisputedly political subdivisions and employees of political subdivisions."
Sullivan's complaint arose from a confrontation with police on Sept. 28, 2019, which led to his arrest on various charges such as disorderly conduct and DUI. Sullivan's amended complaint asserted 23 state law causes of action, including assault, battery, emotional distress, malicious prosecution, negligence and failure to intervene.
The petitioners filed motions to dismiss under West Virginia Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), claiming immunity based on different theories. The Ranson petitioners relied solely on the West Virginia Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Reform Act, which provides immunity to political subdivisions and their employees. The Charles Town petitioners initially claimed immunity under the Tort Claims Act but also argued for "qualified immunity" under state case law applicable to state agencies.
Jefferson Circuit Court partially granted the motions to dismiss, ruling that the police officers were not entitled to qualified immunity due to the details of their actions, that the cities and police chiefs were state actors with no insurance waivers of immunity, and that some claims of negligence and intentional torts could proceed.
Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the Circuit Court erred by applying common law qualified immunity principles, which are meant for the state, its agencies, and officials, rather than the Tort Claims Act applicable to political subdivisions like the petitioners. The court noted that the Circuit Court should have exclusively applied the Tort Claims Act to determine the immunity of the petitioners.
The Supreme Court reversed Jefferson Circuit Court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The Supreme Court instructed the circuit court to re-evaluate each count of Sullivan's amended complaint under the Tort Claims Act framework to decide on granting or denying immunity based on the facts alleged, or to determine if further factual development is necessary.
Bunn wrote in her concurring opinion that while she agreed with the majority's overall decision, she disagreed with its sua sponte application.
"I concur with the majority’s identification of the circuit court’s error regarding immunities and its concise instructions to the circuit court to determine whether immunity applies to the petitioners under the Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Reform Act," Bunn wrote in her concurring opinion. "Further, the majority correctly states, and notes in its Syllabus, that we review the circuit court’s disposition of the petitioners’ motions to dismiss de novo. However, the majority’s sua sponte application of the plain error standard of review to reach its conclusion is unnecessary and overreaching. I respectfully disagree with this standard’s use in this opinion."
Attorneys for the parties declined to comment on the ruling.
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number: 22-0428