Court Opinion

ID: 9585339
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:59:20.862385+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:38:51.683335
License: Public Domain

Berry, President,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in the prohibition proceeding, Case Number 12728, because I do not believe that a circuit court which is a constitutional court of general jurisdiction should be prohibited from trying a case set on its docket for trial based on the question involved in this proceeding. The plaintiff brought an action against a state agency, the Adjutant General of West Virginia and employees of the State having custody of the Armory Building at Oak Hill, West Virginia. The ad damnum clause in the complaint was for $100,000. The Attorney General waived the immunity of the State provided for in the Constitution of West Virginia. At the time this was done the following stipulation was entered into by the attorneys for the plaintiffs and the attorney for the State of West Virginia: “The plaintiffs agree that in the event they obtain a verdict against the defendants in this action, no attempt or effort will be made by them to enforce said verdict by claim, execution or otherwise *159personally against the defendants herein, or against the State of West Virginia or its agencies, hut rather that the plaintiffs’ recovery herein, if any, will be limited to the monies available from the policy or policies of insurance applicable to this action.
“2. In consideration of which the defendants agree to withdraw their motion to dismiss, heretofore filed in this action, without prejudice to them as to any action which the plaintiffs herein may bring at a later date based upon the occurrence or acts which form the basis for this action.”
There is no question but that the limit of liability in the insurance policy involved is $50,000 by virtue of the stipulation entered into by the parties, that is, it is the maximum amount that could be recovered in the trial of the case. If the case was tried the court would be compelled to instruct the jury that any recovery in connection with the case would be limited to $50,000.
It was argued by the attorneys for the petitioners when this case was presented that the reason they did riot want the ad damnum clause limited in the complaint was that they might want to recover more than the limit of liability in the policy against the insurance company for some alleged negligence. This would have nothing whatsoever to do with the case instituted against the state agency because the insurance company is not a party to that action. If there were any merit to the contention made by the petitioner in this instance a separate suit would have to be instituted against the insurance company as a defendant.
It was held in the case of Jenkins v. Montgomery, 69 W. Va. 795, 796, 72 S. E. 1087, that: “The purpose of the ad damnum clause is to inform defendant of the amount of damages demanded * * This is apparently the general definition of the ad damnum clause which clearly states the reason for it in the New York case of Natale v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 186 N. Y. S. 2d 795, 8 A. D. 2d 781, in the following language: “An ‘ad damnum clause’ merely informs an adversary of the maximum amount of *160the claim asserted without being proof of injury or of liability.” It was held in the case of Gable v. The Pathfinder Irrigation District, 159 Neb. 778, 68 N. W. 2d 500, that: “The office of the 'ad damnum’ in a pleading is to fix the amount beyond which a party may not recover on the trial of his action.”
It was held in the case of Colonial Village Restaurants, Inc. v. Colonial Village, Inc., 315 Ill. App. 237, 42 N. E. 2d 849, that: “Plaintiff’s recovery was limited to maximum amount designated in stipulation notwithstanding evidence showed that plaintiff was entitled to recover more.” The case of Lawry v. Yeaton (Maine), 23 Atl. 2d 890, in my opinion, clearly answers the question involved in the case at bar, wherein it was held in a per curiam opinion to the effect that if the jury assessed damages in an amount agreed upon by the plaintiff the ad damnum clause will be deemed to have been amended in that amount.
The trial court had jurisdiction to try this action. It had jurisdiction to construe the stipulation entered into by the parties. The controlling part of the stipulation agreed to by the plaintiffs’ attorney reads as follows: “* * * plaintiffs’ recovery herein, if any, will be limited to the monies available from the policy or policies of insurance applicable to this action.” It will be noted it was stipulated by the plaintiffs that recovery for both would be limited to $50,000 and there was no separation of amounts claimed by each in the stipulation. It would therefore be for the jury to ffx the amount of recovery, if any, for each plaintiff.
The trial court construed this to mean that the recovery against the defendants was limited to $50,000 and that inasmuch as it was so limited the ad damnum clause should not be in excess of the maximum amount of recovery. This the court had the authority to do and I am of the opinion that the trial court was correct in its interpretation of the stipulation and construction thereof. In cases where a stipulation has been involved the construction of such *161stipulation is tested on an appeal and not an extraordinary proceeding. It has been held to be merely an abuse of discretion if incorrect and not a matter of ascertaining whether the court exceeded its legitimate powers. Washington Luna Park Co. v. Goodrich, 110 Va. 692, 66 S. E. 977; Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. American Ditch Association, 50 Idaho 732, 1 P. 2d 196, Billingslea v. Billingslea, 194 Okla. 400, 152 P. 2d 276; Bradford v. Kurn, 235 Mo. App. 1282, 146 S. W. 2d 644. The same rules apply to the construction of stipulations that are applicable to contracts. 83 C. J. S., Stipulations, §11.
It can hardly be questioned that in cases where recovery is limited to a certain amount such as the amount of recovery in a wrongful death action an ad damnum clause for double the amount of recovery limited by statute should be reduced to the amount of recovery allowed by the statute. This is the same procedure that was used in the case at bar when the trial court reduced the ad damnum clause to comply with the limit of recovery stipulated by the parties.
The only reason for refusing to recognize the provisions of the stipulation and the construction thereof by the trial court in the instant case, which, in my opinion, limits the amount of recovery and automatically limits the ad damnum clause in the complaint, is to first hold that the stipulation is void, and if that be held void .the parties would be placed in the same status they were in before the stipulation was entered into, and apparently there can be no recovery against the defendants if such action was taken.
For the reasons stated herein, I would refuse to grant the writ.