Opinion ID: 1324640
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rather than Clarifying the Law on a Cause of Action for Civil Conspiracy, the Majority Opinion Has Added Confusion

Text: New Syllabus point 8 of the majority opinion states: A civil conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons by concerted action to accomplish an unlawful purpose or to accomplish some purpose, not in itself unlawful, by lawful means. The cause of action is not created by the conspiracy but by the wrongful acts done by the defendants to the injury of the plaintiff. New Syllabus point 9 of the majority opinion states: A civil conspiracy is not a per se, stand-alone cause of action; it is instead a legal doctrine under which liability for a tort may be imposed on people who did not actually commit a tort themselves but shared a common plan for its commission with the actual perpetrators. There simply is no need for, nor logic to support, the creation of new Syllabus points 8 and 9. Ultimately, the end result is that our law on civil conspiracy is no longer simple and straightforward. In Kessel v. Leavitt, 204 W.Va. 95, 128, 511 S.E.2d 720, 753 (1998), we said that [t]he law of this State recognizes a cause of action sounding in civil conspiracy. This Court recognized the concept of a civil conspiracy in Dixon v. American Industrial Leasing Co., 162 W.Va. 832, 253 S.E.2d 150 (1979), where we adopted the definition of civil conspiracy set forth in 15A C.J.S. Conspiracy § 1(1). The Court stated in Dixon: As succinctly stated in 15A C.J.S. Conspiracy, Sec. 1(1), a civil conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons by concerted action to accomplish an unlawful purpose or to accomplish some purpose, not in itself unlawful, by unlawful means. Dixon, 162 W.Va. at 834, 253 S.E.2d at 152. This Court went on to hold in Syllabus point 1 of Dixon, in part, the following: In order for civil conspiracy to be actionable it must be proved that the defendants have committed some wrongful act or have committed a lawful act in an unlawful manner to the injury of the plaintiff[.] See Cook v. Heck's Inc., 176 W.Va. 368, 342 S.E.2d 453 (1986) (discussing civil conspiracy); Wells v. Smith, 171 W.Va. 97, 297 S.E.2d 872 (1982) (same), overruled on other grounds by Garnes v. Fleming Landfill, Inc., 186 W.Va. 656, 413 S.E.2d 897 (1991). Prior to the decision in the majority opinion, our law on civil conspiracy was rather straightforward. However, I have no doubt that, as a result of the majority opinion's unwarranted clarification of the tort of civil conspiracy, a great deal of confusion will now surround this cause of action.