Opinion ID: 2510231
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Choice of Law Question

Text: Mr. Mace additionally contends that the circuit court erred in finding that, even if Mr. Mace's claims would be heard in West Virginia, the circuit court would apply North Carolina's law with regard to the discovery rule and the tolling of the statute of limitations. Specifically, in its June 3, 2009, Order regarding defendants' motion to amend and/or clarify, the circuit court succinctly stated, without any further explanation: Although an alternate forum exists in which to bring these actions, the Court is aware that the case may be time barred as North Carolina does not recognize the discovery rule in wrongful death actions. However, North Carolina law would be applied by this Court if this action were to be litigated in West Virginia. (Emphasis added). The circuit court reiterated this position in its March 19, 2010, Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Reinstate, in which it stated: North Carolina has a two-year statute of limitations on wrongful-death actions, NC. G.S. § 1-53(4), with no discovery rule. Udzinski v. Lovin [358 N.C. 534], 597 S.E.2d 703, 706 (N.C.2004). The decisions in Bradshaw v. Soulsby, 210 W.Va. 682, 558 S.E.2d 681 (2001) and/or McKinney v. Fairchild, 199 W.Va. 718, 487 S.E.2d 913 (1997) do not require application of West Virginia's statute of limitations discovery rule to a wrongful death case governed by North Carolina substantive law under the facts of this case, and the court declines to find that West Virginia's discovery rule should be applied in this case. Mr. Mace asserts that the circuit court erred in making such rulings and that West Virginia's discovery rule should be applied to this case. The Court, however, declines to consider this issue in this appeal. The circuit court's statements on this issue cannot be viewed as final decisions on the merits. The circuit court was asked by the Mylan defendants to dismiss the case on the basis of forum non conveniens. No motion was ever filed with regard to choice of law questions, nor were the parties given an opportunity to fully brief the issue. More importantly, the circuit court's pronouncement that it would apply North Carolina law on the discovery rule issue was, in fact, dicta. The circuit court had already dismissed the case on the basis of forum non conveniens when it addressed the choice of law issue for the first time. Accordingly, this Court finds that the circuit court's brief consideration of this question is not a final decision on the merits of the issue which can be considered on appeal. See, e.g., Walker v. W. Va. Ethics Comm'n, 201 W.Va. 108, 119, 492 S.E.2d 167, 178 (1997) (Our well-established practice has required us, on many previous occasions, to decline to determine an issue raised by the parties because that issue had not been passed upon by the circuit court.) (citations omitted).