Court Opinion

ID: 9588490
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:34:54.349882+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:34.781382
License: Public Domain

[[Image here]]
dissenting:
I dissent to this case to draw a comparison between it and the recent case of Perkins v. Doe, 177 W.Va. 84, 350 S.E.2d 711 (1986). In the present case, two West Virginia residents were killed in a one-car collision in Indiana. The State of Indiana had a guest passenger statute which would appear to have blocked the suit. Nevertheless, this Court declared the guest passenger statute to be against this State’s public policy, and therefore we declined to enforce it.
In Perkins v. Doe, the plaintiff was injured in a one-car accident in Virginia. He claimed that his accident was caused because an unknown motorist forced him off the road. However, the applicable West Virginia statute required a touching between the vehicles before there could be a recovery under the uninsured motorist provision while Virginia law did not. To allow the plaintiff to recover, this Court twisted the law so that the plaintiff could bring an action under a West Virginia statute and use the non-touching portions of the Virginia uninsured motorist law.
In the classic pose, Justice is blindfolded so that she can weigh the equities in a case equally without prejudice. We are peeking beneath the blindfold in conflict of law cases to see if an insurance company is involved. If they are, we appear to be manipulating our conflict of law rule so that the insurance company loses. I believe that even insurance companies are entitled to impartiality in the courts.
I therefore respectfully note my dissent.