West Virginia Issues

Attorney General Sunshine / Private Attorney General Sunshine

State Government Accountability Reform: H.B. 104 (2008-1st Extraordinary Session)

West Virginia|2008

Requires the Attorney General to notify the Governor and Legislature

Requires the Attorney General to notify the Governor and Legislature when filing a lawsuit and when entering into settlement negotiations.

[hide]

Unchallenged

Government Retention of Personal Injury Lawyers: H.B. 4007 (2016)

West Virginia|2016

Places guidelines and regulatory parameters on the practice of the

[…]

Places guidelines and regulatory parameters on the practice of the Attorney General hiring private attorneys on a contingency fee basis in civil litigation.

[hide]

Unchallenged

Venue Reform: H.B. 4013 (2018)

West Virginia|2018

Provides that a nonresident of the state may not bring

[…]

Provides that a nonresident of the state may not bring an action in a court of this state unless all or a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to the claim asserted occurred in this state. It also similarly provides an exception in situations where a nonresident’s claim cannot proceed where the action arose because of the plaintiff’s inability to obtain jurisdiction over the defendant there, unless the action is time-barred there. In addition, the law provides that in cases in which there are multiple plaintiffs, each plaintiff must independently establish proper venue.

[hide]

Unchallenged

Manufacturers’ Liability for Prescription Drug Warning: S.B. 474 (2011)

West Virginia|2011

Provides a choice of law provision when nonresidents bring an

[…]

Provides a choice of law provision when nonresidents bring an action against the manufacturer or distributor of a prescription drug for inadequate warnings. Application of the learned intermediary doctrine would be dependent on the law of the state in which the injury occurred.

[hide]

Unchallenged

Reforms View All »

Joint and Several Liability Reform: SB 421 (2005).

West Virginia|2005

Eliminates joint and several liability for defendants 30 percent or

[…]

Eliminates joint and several liability for defendants 30 percent or less at fault. In such situations, defendants pay only percentage of fault as determined by the jury. Provides that if a claimant has not been paid after six months of the judgment, defendants 10 percent or more responsible are subject to reallocation of uncollected amount. Defendants less than 10 percent at fault or whose fault is equal to or less than the claimant’s percentage of fault are not subject to reallocation.

[hide]

Joint and Several Liability Reform: HB 2122 (2003).

West Virginia|2003

Provides for modified joint and several liability in medical malpractice

[…]

Provides for modified joint and several liability in medical malpractice cases so that liability is several among defendants who go to trial, but does not take into account settling defendant’s liability.

[hide]

Reforms View All »

Judgment Interest Reform: H.B. 2678 (2017)

West Virginia|2017

Sets the pre and post judgment interest rate at two

[…]

Sets the pre and post judgment interest rate at two percentage points above the Fifth Federal Reserve District secondary discount rate provided the rate does not exceed nine percent or be less than four percent.

[hide]

Unchallenged

Judgment Interest Rate Reform: S.B. 576 (2006)

West Virginia|2006

Established that the rate for pre-and post-judgment interest may not

[…]

Established that the rate for pre-and post-judgment interest may not exceed 11 percent per year or by less than 7 percent per year.

[hide]

Unchallenged

Reforms View All »

Medical Liability Reform- Innocent Prescriber: H.B. 2011 (2005)

West Virginia|2005

Provided that no health care provider is liable to a

[…]

Provided that no health care provider is liable to a patient or third party for injuries sustained as a result of the ingestion of a prescription drug or use of a medical device that was prescribed or used by a healthcare provider in accordance with instructions approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration regarding dosage and administration of the drug, the indications for which the drug should be taken or device should be used, and the contraindications against the drug or using the device. The liability exemption does not apply if: (1) the health care provider had actual knowledge that the drug or device was inherently unsafe for the purpose for which it was prescribed or used or (2) a manufacturer of such drug or device publicly announces changes in the dosage or administration of such drug or changes in contraindications against taking the drug or using the device and the health care provider fails to follow such publicly announced changes and such failure proximately caused or contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries or damages.

[hide]

Unchallenged

Medical Liability Reform- Expressions of Sympathy: H.B. 3174 (2005)

West Virginia|2005

Provided that no statement, affirmation, gesture or conduct of a

[…]

Provided that no statement, affirmation, gesture or conduct of a healthcare provider who provided healthcare services to a patient, expressing apology, sympathy, commiseration, condolence, compassion or a general sense of benevolence, to the patient, a relative of the patient or a representative of the patient and which relate to the discomfort, pain, suffering, injury or death of the patient shall be admissible as evidence of an admission of liability or as evidence of an admission against interest in medical liability civil actions.

[hide]

Unchallenged

Reforms View All »

Deliberate Intent – H.B. 3270

West Virginia|2023

West Virginia – 2023

[…]

Limits the amount of noneconomic damages recoverable in a deliberate intent case to $500,000.

[hide]

Unchallenged

Medical Liability Reform: Noneconomic Damages Reform: HB 2122 (2003)

West Virginia|2003

Limits the award of noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases

[…]

Limits the award of noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases to $250,000 to $500,000 depending on the severity of the injuries.

[hide]

Challenged and Struck Down

MacDonald v. City Hosp., Inc., 715 S.E.2d 405 (W. Va. 2011).

Reforms View All »

Innocent Seller – H.B. 2850

West Virginia|2017

Limits product liability against a seller to the manufacturer of

[…]

Limits product liability against a seller to the manufacturer of the product unless the seller had actual knowledge of the defect in the product that was a proximate cause of the harm, exercised substantial control over the aspect of manufacture, construction, design, installation, assembly, or instructions of the product that was a proximate cause of the harm, altered, modified, or installed the product in a way not authorized or requested by the manufacturer, or the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the party asserting the product liability action would be unable to enforce judgment against the manufacturer.

[hide]

Unchallenged

Manufacturers’ Liability for Prescription Drug Warning: S.B. 474 (2011)

West Virginia|2011

Provides a choice of law provision when nonresidents bring an

[…]

[hide]

Unchallenged

Miscellaneous

Reforms View All »

Seat Belt Evidence Admissibility – S.B. 439

West Virginia|2021

Displaces a longstanding provision that had excluded seat belt non-usage

[…]

Displaces a longstanding provision that had excluded seat belt non-usage evidence for any purpose if the claimant stipulated to a reduction of damages by a mere five percent. Juries will be allowed to consider and use evidence that a claimant had failed to wear seat belt when they determine the damages resulting from motor vehicle crashes. In the case of adult drivers and passengers who bring product liability claims against vehicle and component sellers, evidence of the claimant’s failure to buckle-up is admissible without limitation. For other types of claims, an adult’s failure to use a seat belt may be considered by juries with respect to the exacerbation and contribution to that claimant’s injuries, but not to establish comparative negligence or fault. For child passengers, allows juries to consider seat belt non-usage evidence in support of a finding that the driver was negligent in contributing to the child’s injuries, but the evidence may not be considered in determining injury causation. The failure to use a seat belt is an affirmative defense, that the defendant must support with admissible opinion testimony. Finally, exceptions apply so that seat belt non-usage evidence will be excluded when an at-fault driver is determined to be intoxicated or fleeing law enforcement. The bill is applicable to claims arising from collisions that occur on or after July 6, 2021.

[hide]

Unchallenged

Intermediate Court of Appeals – S.B. 275

West Virginia|2021

Establishes an intermediate court of appeals in the State of

[…]

Establishes an intermediate court of appeals in the State of West Virginia. Prior to enactment of this legislation, the state did not have an intermediate court of appeals.

[hide]

Unchallenged

Attorney General Sunshine / Private Attorney General Sunshine

Appeal Bond Reform

Forum and Venue

Joint and Several Liability

Judgement Interest Reform

Medical Liability Reform

Noneconomic Damages Reform

Product Liability

Punitive Damages

Miscellaneous

Latest News

View all news

ATRA President: West Virginia Falling Behind on Legal Reform

ATRA Kicks Off Lawsuit Abuse Awareness Week, Highlights Economic Burdens

Shining a Light on Lawsuit Abuse: Kicking Off Lawsuit Abuse Awareness Week 2024

ATRA Hails West Virginia as ‘Tort Reform Trailblazer’ After Passing Key Legal Reforms

More Work Remains on Tort Reform

West Virginia Legislative Session Produces Batch of Legal Reform Bills Signed by Gov