Opinion ID: 2504132
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Exclusionary Language

Text: The issue before us is unlike the typical summary judgment case we often consider. Here we are presented with a judgment as a matter of law in the favor of the non-moving party where that non-moving party made no cross motion for summary judgment. Although this situation is not common, we have considered this type of case before: As the purpose of the summary judgment proceeding is to expedite the disposition of the case a summary judgment may be rendered against the party moving for judgment and in favor of the opposing party even though such party has made no motion for judgment. Syllabus point 4, Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 151 W.Va. 1062, 158 S.E.2d 212 (1967). Syl. pt. 2, Arnold v. Palmer, 224 W.Va. 495, 686 S.E.2d 725 (2009). Although this appeal is being sought on an order entered prior to the disposition of all of the issues, the case is nonetheless ripe for review. Generally, orders made prior to the ending of litigation on the merits are interlocutory and may not be appealed. Syl. pt. 1, Arnold v. Palmer, 224 W.Va. 495, 686 S.E.2d 725 (2009) (`The entry of an order denying a motion for summary judgment made at the close of the pleadings and before trial is merely interlocutory and not then appealable to this court.' Syllabus, Wilfong v. Wilfong, 156 W.Va. 754, 197 S.E.2d 96 (1973).). However, the law does allow review of claims upon which the court has made a final ruling. Hubbard v. State Farm Indem. Co., 213 W.Va. 542, 549, 584 S.E.2d 176, 183 (2003). Typically, for the order to be considered final, it must contain certification language stating that there is no just reason for delay and that it is direct[ing] ... entry of judgment. Id., W. Va. R. Civ. P. 54(b). This language is not always necessary: Where an order granting summary judgment to a party completely disposes of any issues of liability as to that party, the absence of language prescribed by Rule 54(b) ... will not render the order interlocutory and bar appeal provided that this Court can determine from the order that the trial court's ruling approximates a final order in its nature and effect. Hubbard, 213 W.Va. at 549, 584 S.E.2d at 183 (2003) (quoting Durm v. Heck's Inc., 184 W.Va. 562, 401 S.E.2d 908 (1991)). The September 30, 2010, order finds that coverage exists, as a matter of law, for the Plaintiff's claims. In her suit, Ms. Miller brought two claims, one of which sought to have National Union indemnify the State in the case. The circuit court's order completely disposes of the indemnity claim. Although it does not contain the W. Va. R. Civ. P. 54(b) finality language, the parties argueand this Court agreesthat the order is final in its nature and effect as to the issue of indemnity. Therefore, the matter is properly before this Court on appeal, and the Court may consider whether the circuit court's order is correct. The circuit court's order denying summary judgment states that National Union is unable to prove its case. In reaching this conclusion, the circuit court examined the testimony of Mr. Kincaid and Mr. Huffman. The order states that these two men may not provide deposition testimony, based on their own personal knowledge, that the structure that caused the injury in this case was a fence at the time the injury occurred. The order quotes W. Va. R. Evid. 602. This rule reads, in part, A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. The circuit court reasoned that neither Mr. Kincaid nor Mr. Huffman had personal knowledge about matters that occurred prior to their employment with the Defendant WVDOF that would enable them to provide a basis for National Union's definition of a fence. The order notes that both National Union and Ms. Miller provided a definition for fence from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: a barrier intended to prevent escape or intrusion or to mark a boundary; especially such a barrier made of posts and wire or board. The circuit court interpreted this language to require that for a structure to constitute a fence, the structure must keep[] something in or keep[] something out. Mr. Kincaid and Mr. Huffman testified in their depositions that prior to their employment with WVDOF, the Nursery had been used as an orchard to grow seedlings. According to their deposition testimony, both men believed that the wire that caused the injury to Ms. Westfall was at one time part of a functioning fence. In its order, the circuit court also discussed the definition of a lawful fence under W. Va.Code § 19-17-1 (1986), which reads, in part: Every fence of the height and description hereinafter mentioned shall be deemed a lawful fence as to any horses, mules, asses, jennets, cattle, sheep, swine, or goats, which could not creep through the same, that is to say: ... (e) If built with posts and wire, or pickets and wire, four feet high, and shall not consist of less than six strands.... The circuit court's analysis is flawed in two distinct ways. First, the circuit court errs in finding that the testimony of Mr. Kincaid and Mr. Huffman is unhelpful to National Union's case. Although neither man can testify as to his own personal knowledge of when or how the structure that injured Ms. Westfall was originally constructed, he can testify as to what he saw along the property line of the property: an old fence row or the remnant of a fence that was intact at one time. The circuit court's order ignores some of the pertinent language in Endorsement # 7; the policy does not provide coverage for injuries caused by fences, or related or similar activities or things.  (Emphasis added). Thus, it is unnecessary that National Union prove that the structure causing Ms. Westfall's injury is currently a fence or was ever a fence. National Union need only show that the structure is a related or similar thing to a fence. National Union, through the personal knowledge testimony of Mr. Kincaid and Mr. Huffman, produced evidence that the structure is related to or similar to a fence. Rule 602 is therefore satisfied, and a material question of fact exists as to whether the structure which caused the subject injuries was a fence or a related or similar thing. Thus, the circuit court was in error in granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of Ms. Miller. The second basis of error is the circuit court's reliance on W. Va.Code § 19-17-1. The circuit court suggests that because the structure that caused the injury to Ms. Westfall did not satisfy the requirements of being a lawful fence within the meaning of § 19-17-1, the structure was not a fence within the meaning of the exclusionary language in Endorsement # 7. Upon our review of the record and the applicable law, we find that whether the structure is a lawful fence is of no moment. Endorsement # 7 does not explicitly require that the fence it describes be a lawful fence as described in § 19-17-1. Furthermore, the exclusionary language does not implicitly indicate that this section applies; § 19-17-1 only refers to fences used to control livestock, and there is no indication in the policy that the only fences it intended to cover were those intended for livestock. Although it is our determination that this section does not explicitly or implicitly apply, we do recognize that even if it did, it may support National Union's position under the similar to or related to language of Endorsement # 7. The circuit court's order notes that our jurisprudence has established that [w]here the policy language involved is exclusionary, it will be strictly construed against the insurer in order that the purpose of providing indemnity not be defeated. Syl. pt. 5, Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co. v. McMahon & Sons Inc., 177 W.Va. 734, 356 S.E.2d 488 (1987), overruled on other grounds by Potesta v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 202 W.Va. 308, 504 S.E.2d 135 (1998). But we have also held that `[l]anguage in an insurance policy should be given its plain, ordinary meaning.' Syllabus Point 1, Soliva v. Shand, Morahan & Co., 176 W.Va. 430, 345 S.E.2d 33 (1986), overruled, in part, on other grounds by Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co. v. McMahon & Sons, 177 W.Va. 734, 356 S.E.2d 488 (1987). Syl. pt. 1, Mylan Labs. Inc. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 226 W.Va. 307, 700 S.E.2d 518 (2010); and `[w]here the provisions of an insurance policy contract are clear and unambiguous they are not subject to judicial construction or interpretation, but full effect will be given to the plain meaning intended.' Syllabus, Keffer v. Prudential Ins. Co., 153 W.Va. 813, 172 S.E.2d 714 (1970). Syl. pt. 2, Mylan Labs. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 226 W.Va. 307, 700 S.E.2d 518 (2010). Here we have been presented with the task of determining the plain meaning of the word fence. Both parties have submitted that the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definition of fence should control. After exploring the meaning of fence in our case law and the case law of other jurisdictions, we find that the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definition accurately reflects the plain meaning of the word fence. See, e.g., State v. Williams, 209 W.Va. 25, 31, 543 S.E.2d 306, 312 (2000) (stating that remnants of a fence can be introduced as evidence for use in determining the location of a property line); Dustin v. Miller, 180 W.Va. 186, 189-90, 375 S.E.2d 818, 821-22 (1988) (discussing whether a strand of barbed wire strung between trees, described in the case as a fence, created a notorious boundary line); Crim v. England, 46 W.Va. 480, 486, 33 S.E. 310, 312 (1899) (explaining that the purpose of the fence built in the case was to supply certainty as to the land intended to be given); see also Ewing v. Burnet, 36 U.S. 41, 46, 11 Pet. 41, 9 L.Ed. 624 (1837) (describing a fence as evidence of the fact of occupancy in an adverse possession case); United States v. Sarno, 24 F.3d 618, 623 (4th Cir.1994) (describing a four feet high physical perimeter barrier as a fence); Burke v. Ski Am., Inc., 940 F.2d 95, 98 (4th Cir.1991) (describing plastic webbing as a fence, the purpose of which is to warn skiers of stones and trees, not to provide a protective barrier). Upon our de novo review of the circuit court's order, we find that summary judgment was inappropriate because there exists a material question of fact as to whether the structure injuring Ms. Westfall was a fence or whether the structure was similar or related to a fence. Therefore, this case must be reversed and remanded for further proceedings on this question of fact.