Background
Dean W. Randolph was attacked by a pit bull at a Harrison County property on June 19, 2022, suffering a deep neck wound, scarring, and disfigurement. Heather D. White owned the dog; her boyfriend, Larry J. Ford II, stayed at the property at times. Debbie L. Vac jointly owned the property with two sisters and held a State Farm policy on its modular home, but lived in Monongalia County.
Randolph sued White, Ford, and Vac for negligence, later adding State Farm in a declaratory judgment claim. After a jury trial on the tort claims, the jury found Vac not liable and assigned fault to White (63%), Ford (10%), and Randolph (27%). The circuit court denied Randolph’s new-trial motion and, in the bifurcated coverage action, granted State Farm summary judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed both orders. It held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial after excluding proposed evidence of White’s and Ford’s alleged prior irresponsible conduct under Rule 404. The jury had heard the parties’ evidence, and its verdict was supported by the plain preponderance of the evidence.
The court also held that State Farm owed no coverage. Ford was not a resident of Vac’s household: Vac lived elsewhere, Ford testified he lived with White at a separate residence and only occasionally stayed at the insured property, and Vac did not consider him a resident. Independently, the policy’s animal-liability provision required the dog to be owned by the named insured or an additional insured; White owned the dog and was not an insured.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court’s discretionary evidentiary rulings did not warrant a new trial absent prejudicial error or a verdict against the weight of the evidence.
- Occasional stays at insured property did not make Ford a resident of Vac’s household under the policy.
- Animal coverage failed because the dog was owned by White, who was not an insured under the State Farm policy.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the West Virginia household-residency analysis to undisputed testimony showing that relatives did not live together as a family unit, permitting summary judgment despite third-party impressions that Ford lived at the property.
It also enforces a homeowners policy’s unambiguous ownership condition for animal-related liability coverage, leaving no coverage where the dog owner was outside the policy’s definition of insured.