Opinion ID: 1277627
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Certain Remedy

Text: Resolution of the certain remedy question is fairly simple once the equal protection question is resolved. This protection is secured by Article III, Section 17 of our state constitution, which provides, in pertinent part: The courts of this State shall be open, and every person, for an injury done to him, in his person, property or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law[.] In Syllabus Point 6 of Gibson v. West Virginia Department of Highways, supra , we recognized the circumstances in which this right is implicated: There is a presumption of constitutionality with regard to legislation. However, when a legislative enactment either substantially impairs vested rights or severely limits existing procedural remedies permitting court adjudication of cases, then the certain remedy provision of Article III, Section 17 of the West Virginia Constitution is implicated. In Syllabus Point 5 of Lewis v. Canaan Valley Resorts, Inc., supra , we stated the principles governing a case in which the certain remedy provision is implicated: When legislation either substantially impairs vested rights or severely limits existing procedural remedies permitting court adjudication, thereby implicating the certain remedy provision of article III, section 17 of the Constitution of West Virginia, the legislation will be upheld under that provision if, first, a reasonably effective alternative remedy is provided by the legislation or, second, if no such alternative remedy is provided, the purpose of the alteration or repeal of the existing cause of action or remedy is to eliminate or curtail a clear social or economic problem, and the alteration or repeal of the existing cause of action or remedy is a reasonable method of achieving such purpose. In Randall v. Fairmont City Police Department, 186 W.Va. at 343, 412 S.E.2d at 744, we considered the certain remedy provision in the context of the Tort Claims Act: [T]he legislature has found that political subdivisions in this state have been unable to raise sufficient revenues to procure affordable liability insurance coverage without reducing the quantity and quality of traditional governmental services.... We believe this finding states a clear economic problem and that the method selected by the legislature to eliminate or curtail this clear economic problem, specifically, the broad, but not total, reinstatement of local governmental immunity, is a reasonable method of achieving the legislative objective.... While we are sensitive to the interests of those persons injured by political subdivisions, the legislature has responded reasonably to the Court's invitation ... to speak comprehensively on this subject. In Syllabus Point 2 of Randall, we stated: The qualified tort immunity provisions of the West Virginia Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Reform Act of 1986, W.Va.Code, 29-12A-1 to 29-12A-18, do not violate the certain remedy provision of article III, section 17 of the Constitution of West Virginia . Clearly, our discussions in Gibson, Lewis, and Randall of the certain remedy provision reflect that in order to successfully invoke its protection, one of several events must be shown. First, it must be shown that the legislation impairs vested rights which, in the context of a cause of action, means that the individual had an existing claim prior to the passage of the legislation. [12] In the alternative, it must be shown that the legislation severely limits existing procedural remedies permitting adjudication of the plaintiff's claim. Even if such an impairment or limitation is shown, however, the measure will not violate the certain remedy provision of our constitution if the purpose of the alteration or repeal of the existing cause of action or remedy is to eliminate a clear social or economic problem and the repeal or alteration... is a reasonable method of achieving such purpose. Syllabus Point 5, in part, Lewis v. Canaan Valley Resorts, Inc., supra . In Gibson, we traced the history of our certain remedy provision and considered similar provisions found in other state constitutions. The rule we adopted accorded substantial latitude to legislative enactments. Inherent in our approach is the consideration of the reasonableness of the method chosen to alter or repeal existing rights. In our certain remedy analysis as opposed to our examination of equal protection principles, we consider the total impact of the legislation. Where its impact is limited rather than absolute, there is less interference with the certain remedy principle, and the legislation will be upheld. In the present case, the statutory bar is not absolute, but is limited to a narrow class, i.e., those who have received workers' compensation benefits for the injury. We have accepted the legislative reasons for the enactment as valid, and, consequently, we find the certain remedy provisions of Article III, Section 17 of our state constitution not to have been violated. In summary, then, we conclude that W.Va.Code, 29-12A-5(a)(11), giving political subdivisions immunity from tort liability in suits by injured persons whose claims are covered by workers' compensation or employer's liability laws, does not violate the equal protection principles of Article III, Section 10 or the certain remedy provision of Article III, Section 17 of the West Virginia Constitution.