WV Supreme Court Rejects Challenges to Pre-Trial Rulings in Chemical Exposure Class Action
The Supreme Court of Appeals issued its decision on November 15 in State of West Virginia ex rel. Chemtall, Inc. v, Madden, 2007 WL 4098937 (W.Va.), which was argued at the beginning of the term. Here is my post regarding the argument. This opinion is the third one from the Supreme Court regarding this case, which is significant, given that the case has not gone to trial yet, even though it was filed in 2003.
The per curiam opinion addressed the petition for a writ of prohibition and/or mandamus filed by the defendant suppliers and/or manufacturers of polyacrylamide against the Circuit Court of Marshall County regarding two of its orders. The first order permitted water treatment workers to intervene in the action based on their exposure to polyacrylamide, which is the same exposure claimed by the class of former coal preparation plant workers. The second order permitted the use of a punitive damages multiplier for the plaintiffs’ medical monitoring claims and allowed for the common adjudication of claims that arose under West Virginia and Pennsylvania’s medical monitoring claims.
In this decision, the Court denied the defendants’ requested relief. First, the Court held that its prior decision in Stern v. Chemtall, Inc., 617 S.E.2d 876 (W.Va. 2005), was intended to permit the intervention of water treatment workers in the action. The Court noted that there were facts common to both groups of workers, such as exposure to the same chemical and the risk of contracting the same diseases, which made intervention appropriate. The Court also noted that the circuit court had not “indicated how it intends to manage any differences with regard to these two groups of plaintiffs[,]” which would make a ruling premature.
As to the issue of punitive damages, the petitioners challenged the circuit court’s proposed trial plan as violating their due process rights because a jury would not consider a plaintiff’s individualized harm in assessing the damages and would not first find actual liability against any defendant.
The Court emphasized that the circuit court’s trial plan did not guarantee a result contrary to Phillip Morris USA v. Williams, 127 S.Ct. 1057, 166 L.Ed.2d 940 (2007), which addressed whether the United States’ Constitution’s Due Process Clause permits a jury to award punitive damages based in part on its desire to punish the defendant for harming persons who are not before the court. The Court again emphasized that as no trial had taken place, “[n]o evidence has been adduced, none of the petitioners have been found liable for any tortious conduct, and punitive damages have not been assessed. Therefore, a decision on the constitutionality of punitive damages at this point would amount to nothing more than an exercise in speculation.”
The Court also declined to rule on the petitioners’ claim that punitive damages are not available in cases where the plaintiffs sought only medical monitoring damages, expressing its belief that “appellate review of this issue is better left to the review of a verdict after complete development of all the facts and testimony and after a trial of all the issues."
Likewise, in addressing the petitioners’ argument about the adjudication of claims arising under West Virginia and Pennsylvania law, the Court reaffirmed the circuit court’s discretion to manage its docket, such that “[w]e believe that the circuit court below is fully capable of formulating procedures that effectively address any differences in West Virginia and Pennsylvania law.”
In the final paragraph of the opinion, the Court makes clear its exasperation with the parties: “We hope the litigants understand and appreciate the difficulty this Court faces in trying to decide so many issues pre-trial, in the limited context of extraordinary remedies, and in the absence of a meaningful, fully-developed factual record. Accordingly, we trust the lawyers and parties will now focus vigorously on letting these cases be tried by a trial court. Having disposed of the issues raised herein, we are confident that the parties can now proceed to trial without further delay and without the necessity of additional guidance from this Court.”
In other words, don’t come back unless you've tried the case.
