William Caudill, duly appointed guardian of minor infants T.M. and C.M., Charles Samuel Hammett, Kimberly Dawn Hammett, and Haylie Hammett v. EAN Holdings LLC, d/b/a Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Buenaventura Jesurum, Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Rental Insurance Services, Inc., and Rafael Lorenzo Herrera

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed summary-judgment orders arising from a fatal interstate collision involving a rented vehicle. The court addressed procedural due process, choice of law, negligent entrustment and direct negligence claims, and claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and conspiracy against the rental company, individuals, and insurers. The memorandum decision states that the circuit court’s orders were affirmed, while concluding that West Virginia law applied to the negligence-based claims.

Holdings

1. The circuit court did not violate plaintiffs' procedural due process rights by ruling on the summary-judgment motions before plaintiffs responded because plaintiffs had notice that the court intended to rule, were given an opportunity to submit additional evidence, and failed to take steps to protect their interests.
2. West Virginia law governs plaintiffs' negligence-based claims because West Virginia was the place of injury under the lex loci delicti rule.
3. EAN was entitled to summary judgment because plaintiffs did not produce evidence creating a genuine issue that EAN knew or should have known that Herrera was incompetent or unfit to drive when it entrusted him with the Explorer.
4. EAN was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs' direct negligence claim because, in this context, EAN's duty to third parties was limited to the duty not to entrust its vehicle to a person it knew or should have known was incompetent or unfit to drive.
5. Jesurum was entitled to summary judgment because plaintiffs did not present evidence creating a genuine issue that he knew or should have known, at the time of entrustment, that Herrera was incompetent or unfit to drive.
6. EAN, RIS, and Empire were entitled to summary judgment because plaintiffs failed to present evidence of extreme and outrageous conduct, intent or recklessness, causation, or sufficiently severe emotional distress; civil conspiracy was not independently actionable without an underlying tort.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court violated procedural due process by ruling on summary-judgment motions before plaintiffs filed responses.
2. Whether West Virginia or Kentucky and Tennessee law governed the negligence-based claims.
3. Whether plaintiffs presented a genuine issue of material fact on negligent entrustment and direct negligence claims against EAN.
4. Whether plaintiffs presented a genuine issue of material fact on negligent entrustment against Jesurum.
5. Whether plaintiffs presented a genuine issue of material fact on intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy claims against EAN, RIS, and Empire.

Disposition

affirmed