LegalNewsLine Logo  
Saturday, July 4 2009     Subscribe in NewsGator Online
News | Contact LegalNewsline | About Us | Advertise | RSS
Enter search keyword
 
NEWSLETTER
Receive our FREE weekly newsletter
click here
LNL MOST POPULAR ARTICLES
+ U.S. Supreme Court sides with white firefighters in race bias case
+ U.S. Supreme Court: State AGs may probe national lending practices
+ King: Rethink GM bankruptcy plan
+ McKenna argues against federal preemption of consumer laws
+ Obama says Supreme Court 'moving the ball' on affirmative action
LNL HOT TOPICS
+ Asbestos
+ Bankruptcy
+ Big Pharma
+ Class Action
+ Dickie Scruggs
+ Financial Crisis
+ Gasoline Prices
+ Global Warming
+ Hurricane Katrina
+ Lead Paint
+ Personal Injury
+ Sub-Prime Mortgages
State Supreme Courts 
 
W.Va. SC sends Ohio plaintiff packing
Benjamin
CHARLESTON, W.Va. (Legal Newsline) - Having a West Virginia-based attorney who received communications from an insurance company does not mean an out-of-state plaintiff can file suit in West Virginia, the state Supreme Court recently ruled.

Frank Savarese, of Yorkville, Ohio, and his Wheeling lawyer argued that their suit against Allstate Insurance Co. could be filed in Wheeling, even though Savarese's original suit, filed over an automobile accident, was filed in Ohio.

Savarese sued Allstate for compensatory and punitive damages in 2006 because it allegedly failed to make payments for his medical treatment. During the first suit, Allstate routinely e-mailed his attorney, David Jividen.

"The claim was adjusted in offices located in Hudson, Ohio, and Birmingham, Ala. Any decisions involving whether to pay or to deny benefits under the policy were made at these locations," Justice Brent Benjamin wrote.

"The decisions were then simply communicated to the plaintiff's attorney, but they were already finalized before they were communicated.

"A mere communication to an attorney that a decision has been made, without more, cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction. To find differently would put the Defendants in a situation where they would either have to 1) submit to jurisdiction anywhere a claimant hires an attorney simply because they have a duty to communicate with the attorney, or 2) refuse to send correspondence to a claimant's attorney in order to preserve their jurisdictional defenses, but possibly give rise to additional bad faith claims for failure to communicate."

Justice Larry Starcher dissented and reserved the right to file an opinion of his own.

The Ohio County Circuit Court in Wheeling also sided with Allstate. Savarese claimed that because communications between his attorney and Allstate occurred primarily in Wheeling, that the part of West Virginia law that says a suit can be filed there when "all or a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to the claim" was satisfied.

"(W)e now hold that the retention by Mr. Savarese, an Ohio resident, of a West Virginia attorney to pursue medical payment claims under an Ohio insurance contract for an injury sustained in Ohio is insufficient to establish venue under W. Va. Code § 56-1-1(c) for a cause of action governed by Ohio law arising from the denial of payment of such medical claims where no party to the action is a West Virginia resident," Benjamin wrote.

From Legal Newsline: Reach John O'Brien by e-mail at john@legalnewsline.com.

Filed Under: State Supreme Courts


COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

No comments have been posted in the last 15 days!

SEND US YOUR COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:


* - Required fields

Subject: *
Message: *
Contact Name: *
Contact URL:
Contact Email: *
This Is CAPTCHA Image
Write the characters in the image above: 

E-mail this article to a friend | Printer friendly format

MORE NEWS HEADLINES:
+ Ohio justices to hear satellite TV tax case - 7/1  
+ Minn. Supreme Court: Al Franken won Minnesota Senate race - 7/1  
+ Nevada SC approves rules for new foreclosure mediation program - 6/30  
+ N.J. Senate gives justice tenure - 6/29  
+ Civil justice group says 'right decision, wrong author' in court'... - 6/24  
+ Arizona Supreme Court sidesteps budget battle - 6/24  
+ Justice Albin one step closer to tenure - 6/23  
+ Sheetz unhappy with Pa. SC decision - 6/16  
+ Utah SC hears DRAM price-fixing case - 6/13  
+ Calif. court: Businesses may be sued for unintentional ADA violat... - 6/12  


IN THE SPOTLIGHT:
Monday, June 29, 2009
WASHNGTON (Legal Newsline) - The federal government plans to withhold nearly a half-million dollars the next time it doles out Medicaid funding to the State of West Virginia as a result of a settlement engineered by state Attorney General Darrell McGraw.
Read more...


+ The Libby verdict: Did the judge play favorites? - 6/2
+ Sotomayor can expect plenty of scrutiny - 5/26
+ The Libby verdict: Prosecutors make a fatal mistake - 5/21
+ California judge accuses asbestos firms of playing 'grisly games' - 5/5
+ GOP calls for outside counsel reform in wake of Rendell controversy - 4/23
BROWSE BY STATE:
 
BROWSE BY AG:
 
BROWSE BY DATE:
 
LATEST LNL BLOG ENTRIES:
+ Abbott: Beware Dietary Supplement Scams and 'Miracle' Health Claims
+ Abbott's signs of a scam
+ AG McCollum on convicts in the mortgage industry
NEWS WIDGET:
Attention bloggers:
Add Record Headlines to your site!


fast + free- click here

NEWS | CONTACT LEGALNEWSLINE | ABOUT US | ADVERTISE | RSS © 2008 LegalNewsLine.com. All Rights Reserved.