May 27, 2022

Volume XII, Number 147

Advertisement
Advertisement

May 27, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 26, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 25, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 24, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
Advertisement

In West Virginia, Severability or Limits of Protection Clauses Do Not Negate Unambiguous Exclusions

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia recently found that intentional acts and criminal acts exclusions in homeowner’s insurance policies that prohibit coverage for the acts of “any insured” clearly and unambiguously preclude recovery by an innocent co-insured.  The Court further found that the exclusions are not negated by a “severability of insurance” or “limits of protection” provision in the policy as those clauses pertain to the limits of coverage and not to policy exclusions.

In American Nat’l Prop. and Cas. Co. v. Clendenen, et al.[1], the West Virginia Court answered two questions certified from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia arising out of the Skylar Neese murder litigation.  Sheila Eddy, Rachel Shoaf, and Skylar Neese were teenagers who had been friends for many years; however, Eddy and Shoaf wanted to end the friendship without fear that Skylar would reveal embarrassing information about them.  Eddy and Shoaf picked Skylar up in a vehicle, drove her to a remote location, stabbed her to death, and hid her body.  Eddy and Shoaf eventually confessed and pleaded guilty to the murder.  Thereafter, a wrongful death suit was filed by Skylar’s parents against Eddy and Shoaf and their mothers.  The mothers of Eddy and Shoaf were sued for “negligent supervision/entrustment” alleging that they were “negligent and careless in their supervision and guidance of their daughters.” Clendenen at n. 3.  ANPAC and Erie, issuing homeowner’s policies to the parents, filed federal declaratory judgment actions, later consolidated, challenging defense and indemnity obligations because of policy intentional and criminal acts exclusions arising out of the acts of “any insured” or “anyone we protect.”  Skylar’s parents and the mothers challenged the operation of those exclusions as to innocent co-insureds and, further, asserted that the “severability of insurance” or “limits of protection” clauses in the policies negated the exclusions.

Although the federal court believed the exclusions were unambiguous, clarification of any impact of the severability or limits of protection clauses on those exclusions was sought from the West Virginia Court.  The Supreme Court held that the clear and unambiguous policy language expressly excludes coverage for damages caused by the intentional or criminal acts of any insured and that “the severability [or limits of protection] clause’s command to apply the insurance separately to each insured does not alter the intentional/criminal acts exclusions’ plain meaning or create ambiguity in its application.  The purpose of severability clauses is to spread protection, to the limits of coverage, among all of the insureds.  The purpose is not to negate unambiguous exclusions.  The policies should be ‘read as a whole with all policy provisions given effect.'”  Clendenen at 39-40 (slip opinion).  Thus, there is no coverage for the claims against the mothers, which arose from the intentional and criminal conduct of Eddy and Shoaf.


[1] ___ W.Va. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, 2016 WL 6833123 (Nov. 17, 2016).

© Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume VII, Number 3
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Laurie Barbe, insurance claims lawyer, Steptoe Johnson, Morgantown law firm
Member

Laurie Barbe represents insurance companies in response to first and third party insurance claims and defends individuals and businesses in claims involving personal injury, wrongful death, products liability and property damage. She has also been involved in appellate proceedings before the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Key Experience

Provided assistance to insurance companies writing new business in West Virginia to assure their policies are in compliance with applicable laws and regulations

...
304-598-8113
Michelle Gaston, Steptoe Johnson Law Firm, Litigation Attorney
Member

Michelle Gaston is a straight forward, no nonsense lawyer, who is willing to get her hands dirty for her clients.  Clients appreciate Michelle’s ability to balance her love of research and writing with practical solutions that can be implemented. 

Michelle’s practice is rooted in the insurance business, and she regularly reviews policies, provides coverage opinions, and solves coverage disputes, as well as actively litigates, both on behalf of insurance companies and its clients. 

A unique specialty for Michelle is that...

304-353-8126
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement