Breach of Contract Cases

<p>Syllabus by the Court</p> <p>1. "A circuit court's entry of summary judgment is reviewed de novo." Syllabus Point 1, Painter v. Peavy, 192 W.Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994).</p> <p>2. "Determination of the proper coverage of an insurance contract when the facts are not in dispute is a question of law." Syllabus Point 1, Tennant v. Smallwood, 211 W.Va. 703, 568 S.E.2d 10 (2002).</p> <p>3. "The interpretation of an insurance contract, including the question of whether the contract is ambiguous, is a legal determination *348that, like a lower court's grant of summary judgement, shall be reviewed de novo on appeal." Syllabus Point 2, Riffe v. Home Finders Associates., Inc., 205 W.Va. 216, 517 S.E.2d 313 (1999).</p> <p>4. "`Language in an insurance policy should be given its plain, ordinary meaning.' Syl. Pt. 1, Soliva v. Shand, Morahan & Co., 176 W.Va. 430, 345 S.E.2d 33 (1986)." Syllabus Point 2, Russell v. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co., 188 W.Va. 81, 422 S.E.2d 803 (1992).</p>

<bold>1. Appeal and Error — appealability —</bold> <bold>discovery order — some documents protected, some not</bold> <bold>— immediately appealable</bold> <block_quote> The immediate appeal of a trial court discovery order protecting some but not all of the documents in question affected a substantial right that would otherwise be lost, and the order was reviewed. However, the order will be upset only by a showing that the trial court abused its discretion.</block_quote> <bold>2. Discovery — emails — attorney-client</bold> <bold>privilege — inapplicability</bold> <block_quote> Emails exchanged between bank officials were not protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege where they suggested a purely business matter, were not for legal advice, and the attorneys were copied merely for information. A document without privilege in the hands of the client does not become privileged merely because it is handed to the attorney.</block_quote> <bold>3. Discovery — emails — attorney-client</bold> <bold>privilege — applicability</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that certain emails were protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege where the attorney-client relationship was firmly established at the time the emails were sent; the emails were apparently exchanged in confidence; they related to discovery matters about which the attorneys were being consulted; and they were exchanged in the course of litigation and arbitration.</block_quote><page_number>Page 407</page_number> <bold>4. Discovery — attorney-client privilege —</bold> <bold>applicability</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ruling that an email from counsel discussing revisions to a draft resolution and an email from in-house counsel were protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege and that an email from attorneys requesting a meeting and an email from defendant shared with attorneys an