Opinion ID: 4098935
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Governing Standard

Text: Inasmuch as this case was decided on Respondent’s motion to dismiss, West Virginia Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), we review this matter de novo and follow our long-established rule that “[f]or purposes of the motion to dismiss, the complaint is construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and its allegations are to be taken as true.” Cantley v. Lincoln Cty. Comm’n, 221 W.Va. 468, 470, 655 S.E.2d 490, 492 (2007) (citing John W. Lodge Distrib. Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 161 W.Va. 603, 605, 245 S.E.2d 157, 158 (1978)). “The purpose of a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure is to test the sufficiency of the complaint.” Cantley, 221 W.Va. at 470, 655 S.E.2d at 492. This Court has held that [t]he trial court, in appraising the sufficiency of a complaint on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, should not dismiss the complaint unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). negligence action: duty.” However, Petitioner did not file a negligence action. We therefore agree with Petitioner that the circuit court erred by misapplying the negligence standard to her claim involving a constructive retaliatory discharge. Nevertheless, “[i]n determining whether a motion to dismiss . . . is appropriate, we apply the same test that the circuit court should have applied initially. We are not wed, therefore, to the lower court’s rationale, but may rule on any alternate ground manifest in the record.” Conrad v. ARA Szabo, 198 W.Va. 362, 369, 480 S.E.2d 801, 808 (1996) (citations omitted). 3 With regard to Petitioner’s tort of outrage claim, the circuit court findings were limited to only one statement, that “for the reasons cited above, it failed as a matter of law.” Petitioner’s assignments of error before this Court relate to her constructive retaliatory discharge claim; however, she addresses her tort of outrage claim in her reply brief. Rule 3(c) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that a petition for appeal sets forth the “assignments of error relied upon on appeal[.]” We have made clear that this Court ordinarily will not address an argument not raised as an assignment of error. See e.g., Canterbury v. Laird, 221 W.Va. 453, 458, 655 S.E.2d 199, 204 (2007) (refusing to consider argument in appellant’s brief not assigned as error in petition for appeal). Consequently, we decline to consider the dismissal of Petitioner’s tort of outrage claim. 3 Syl. Pt. 3, Chapman v. Kane Transfer Co., 160 W.Va. 530, 236 S.E.2d 207 (1977). With these principles in mind, we proceed to the merits of this case.