No. 15-0098 – State of West Virginia, ex rel. Airsquid Ventures Inc. (d/b/a Amphibious 

Medics), and Travis Pittman v. the Honorable David W. Hummel, Jr., Judge of the 

Circuit Court of Marshall County; Mita Sengupta, as Personal Representative of the 

Estate of Avishek Sengupta; Tough Mudder, LLC, Peacemaker National Training Center, 

LLC, General Mills, Inc., and General Mills Sales, Inc. 

No. 15-0102 – State of West Virginia ex rel. Tough Mudder, LLC; Peacemaker National 

Training Center, LLC; General Mills, Inc.; and General Mills Sales, Inc. v. the 

Honorable David W. Hummel, Jr., Judge of the Circuit Court of Marshall County, and 

Mita Sengupta, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Avishek Sengupta 

FILED 

September 24, 2015 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

Benjamin, Justice, concurring: 

The issue in this case is simply one of interpretation. The contract clause at 

issue provides: 

Venue and Jurisdiction: I understand that if legal action is 

brought, the appropriate state or federal trial court for the 

state in which the [Tough Mudder] event is held has the sole 

and exclusive jurisdiction and that only the substantive laws 

of the State in which the [Tough Mudder] event is held shall 

apply. 

(Emphasis added). The parties’ dispute concerns the meaning of the words “the 

appropriate” and whether the Marshall County Circuit Court—the court in which the 

plaintiff filed her complaint—is “the appropriate” venue within the meaning of the forum 

selection clause. 

In determining the applicability of the forum selection clause, the first step 

is to examine whether the clause is ambiguous. Kohler Co. v. Wixen, 555 N.W.2d 640, 

644 (1996). “‘A contract is ambiguous when it is reasonably susceptible to more than one 

1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

meaning in light of the surrounding circumstances and after applying the established rules 

of construction.’” Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 69 v. City of Fairmont, 196 W. 

Va. 97, 101, 468 S.E.2d 712, 716 (1996) (quoting Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc., 194 

W. Va. 52, 65, 459 S.E.2d 329, 342 (1995)). “If language in a contract is found to be 

plain and unambiguous, such language should be applied according to such meaning.” Id. 

Here, the words in dispute are “the” and “appropriate.” With regard to the 

operation of the definite article “the,” the Court has said: 

The definite article “the” particularizes the subject which it 

precedes: “law-enforcement officer.” In other words, the 

statute uses the word “the” to refer to a specific lawenforcement officer. See, e.g., Clair v. Commonwealth, No. 

2011–SC–000774–MR, –––S.W.3d ––––, ––––, 2014 WL 

4113014, at *17 (Ky.2014) (“The use of the definite article, 

the word ‘the,’ signals a specific thing.”); Yellowbird v. N.D. 

Dep't of Transp., 833 N.W.2d 536, 539 (N.D.2013) (“ ‘[T]he’ 

is [a]n article which particularizes the subject spoken of. In 

construing [a] statute, definite article ‘the’ particularizes the 

subject which it precedes and is [a] word of limitation as 

opposed to indefinite or generalizing force [of] ‘a’ or ‘an.’ ” 

(Internal quotation and citation omitted.)); New Iberia 

Firefighters Ass’n, Local 775 v. City of New Iberia, 140 

So.3d 788, 792–93 (La.Ct.App.2014) (“ ‘The’ is a definite 

article, which refers to a specific person, place, or thing; 

whereas ‘a’ or ‘an’ are indefinite articles, which refer to 

people, places, or things in a general or nonspecific 

manner.”); In re AJR, 300 Mich.App. 597, 834 N.W.2d 904, 

907 (2013) (“[I]f the Legislature wants to refer to something 

particular, not general, it uses the word ‘the,’ rather than ‘a’ 

or ‘an.’ ”); cf. Maupin v. Sidiropolis, 215 W.Va. 492, 497, 

600 S.E.2d 204, 209 (2004) (“Typically, though, ‘an’ is 

construed as making general, rather than specific, references 

to its words of modification.”). 

2
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dale v. Painter, 234 W. Va. 343, 351, 765 S.E.2d 232, 240 (2014) (emphasis added). 

Plainly, the use of the word “the” in the clause limits the location in which the suit may 

be heard to one state court. 

The word “appropriate” is defined as “especially suitable or compatible: 

FITTING,” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 61 (11th ed. 2005), and 

“[s]pecifically fitted or suitable, proper,” 1 The Oxford English Dictionary 586 (2d ed. 

1991). Cf. Black’s Law Dictionary 1790 (10th ed. 2014) (defining “venue” as “[t]he 

proper or possible place for a lawsuit to proceed, usu. because the place has some 

connection either with the events that gave rise to the lawsuit or with the plaintiff or 

defendant.”). 

The plain meaning of the language in dispute, “the appropriate,” when read 

in conjunction with the other language in the forum selection clause, permits the parties 

to file suit in the one state court that is especially suitable, compatible, and fitting to hear 

the case. 

Both the majority of the Court and Justice Davis in her dissent conclude 

that the forum selection clause is ambiguous, and so they turn to different sections of our 

venue statute, W. Va. Code § 56-1-1 (2007), to interpret the clause. I do not believe that 

the section is ambiguous, and therefore, I do not believe the Court needs to look for 

direction from our venue statute. 

3
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The plain language of the forum selection clause, when applied to the facts 

presented in this case, establishes that the one proper state court that is especially 

suitable, compatible, and fitting is the Berkeley County Circuit Court. As the majority 

correctly recognizes, the agreement was executed in Berkeley County, the event in which 

the decedent participated took place in Berkeley County, the decedent’s death occurred in 

Berkeley County, many of the witnesses reside in Berkeley County, and one of the 

defendants—Peacemaker National Training Center, LLC—has its principal place of 

business in Berkeley County. No other circuit court in this state, including the Marshall 

County Circuit Court, has such significant connections to the events giving rise to the suit 

or to the parties. Therefore, although I disagree with its reasoning in concluding that the 

Berkeley County Circuit Court is the proper venue in which to bring this case, I agree 

with the majority’s conclusion that the requested writ of prohibition should be granted. 

4