Opinion ID: 1347613
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Summary Judgment on the Issue of Mr. Bowden's Immunity

Text: The appellant contends that the circuit court erred in finding that appellee Bowden was immune as an employee of a political subdivision under the Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Reform Act, W.Va.Code, 29-12A-1 to -18. The appellant concedes that RCESA is a political subdivision under the Act. [10] As to the immunity of employees of a political subdivision, such as appellee Bowden, we have previously held that: West Virginia Code § 29-12A-5(b) provides that employees of political subdivisions are immune from personal tort liability unless (1) [h]is or her acts or omissions were manifestly outside the scope of employment or official responsibilities; (2) [h]is or her acts or omissions were with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner; or (3) [l]iability is expressly imposed upon the employee by a provision of this code. Syllabus Point 1, Beckley v. Crabtree, 189 W.Va. 94, 428 S.E.2d 317 (1993). [11] The appellant argues that summary judgment dismissing appellee Bowden on the grounds of immunity was incorrect. While it appears that Mr. Bowden was acting within the scope of his employment and official responsibilities, the appellant argues that questions of fact exist concerning whether Mr. Bowden acted with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner as set forth in W.Va.Code, 29-12A-5(b)(2). In order for the appellant to sustain her claim against Mr. Bowden, she must have produced some `concrete evidence from which a reasonable ... [finder of fact] could return a verdict in ... [her] favor' or other `significant probative evidence tending to support the complaint.' Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc., 194 W.Va. at 60, 459 S.E.2d at 337 ( citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). `[U]nsupported speculation is not sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion.' Williams, 194 W.Va. at 61, 459 S.E.2d at 338 ( citing Felty v. Graves-Humphreys Co., 818 F.2d 1126, 1128 (4th Cir.1987)). After reviewing the record and the arguments of the parties, we find that the appellant has failed to articulate any action that appellee Bowden took towards her maliciously, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner. While the record suggests that Mr. Bowden acted without the benefit of legal advice and may have violated W.Va.Code, 23-5A-1 and -2, we cannot say his actions rose to a level of malice, bad faith, or recklessness sufficient to avoid the immunity conferred upon Mr. Bowden by W.Va.Code, 29-12A-5(b). Accordingly, we find that the circuit court correctly granted summary judgment to appellee Bowden on this issue, and affirm the circuit court's order on this issue alone.