Perrine v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.

Summary

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals reviews three consolidated appeals arising from an environmental class action concerning arsenic, cadmium, and lead contamination from a zinc smelter in Spelter, West Virginia. The court conditionally affirmed liability and compensatory relief subject to a new trial on statute-of-limitations knowledge, reversed the punitive damages award with a remittitur option, affirmed DuPont’s indemnification obligation to Diamond, and upheld the exclusion of certain property claims based on predecessor releases and easements.

Holdings

1. DuPont's environmental and sale agreement unambiguously required DuPont to indemnify Diamond for liabilities, defense costs, and expenses arising from the environmental condition of the smelter property and this litigation.
2. The releases and easements in the Grasselli deeds were binding and enforceable against successors in title and barred the property-damage claims of plaintiffs whose properties were subject to those instruments.
3. The circuit court erred by granting summary judgment for the plaintiffs on the statute-of-limitations issue because conflicting evidence created a jury question concerning when the plaintiffs knew or should have known of their injuries and their causal connection to the smelter.
4. When a circuit court erroneously resolves a statute-of-limitations issue as a matter of law after a final judgment, the appellate court may conditionally affirm the judgment and remand for a jury trial solely on the limitations issue.
5. The circuit court properly certified the property and medical-monitoring classes under West Virginia Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
6. Punitive damages are not proper in connection with a claim for medical monitoring; the punitive-damages award therefore had to be reduced to exclude the medical-monitoring component.

Questions Presented

1. Whether DuPont was obligated under its 2001 environmental and sale agreement to indemnify Diamond for liabilities, defense costs, and expenses arising from the class action.
2. Whether releases and easements contained in the Grasselli deeds barred property-damage claims by successors in title.
3. Whether the circuit court improperly resolved the statute-of-limitations issue as a matter of law rather than submitting the plaintiffs' knowledge to the jury.
4. Whether certification and maintenance of the property and medical-monitoring classes complied with West Virginia Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
5. Whether the trial court improperly admitted other-acts evidence under West Virginia Rule of Evidence 404(b).
6. Whether the trial court properly qualified and permitted testimony from the plaintiffs' expert witness.
7. Whether the verdict form and jury instructions misstated the governing law.
8. Whether the evidence supported the medical-monitoring verdict.
9. Whether punitive damages were legally permissible for medical-monitoring claims and whether the punitive-damages award was proper and excessive.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded