TACKETT v. AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE CO., No. 30633 (Davis, J.)(Starcher, C.J., concurring)(March 3, 2003). Reversing an order of the Circuit Court of Cabell County that granted summary judgment to defendant insurer in a declaratory action by the insured seeking to recoup legal expenses incurred in the defense of a lawsuit for which the appellees failed to provide him a defense. Holding, in syllabus point 5, that "Any question concerning an insurer's duty to defend under an insurance policy must be construed liberally in favor of an insured where there is any question about an insurer's obligations." At issue was whether an insurer has a duty to defend its insured's employee in a cause of action alleging that the employee, in his capacity as such, intentionally caused personal injury to a third party. Holding that the duty to defend arises from policy language covering damages resulting from "personal injury," which encompasses the conduct at issue in the underlying lawsuit.

HEITZ v. CLOVIS, et al., No. 30684 (Per Curiam)(March 3, 2003). Reversing an order of the Circuit Court of Wood County that denied a motion for new trial in an action to recover a commission allegedly owed to him by the appellees and defendants below for services in providing a purchaser for the appellee's corporate assets. Holding that the lower court erred in adding a requirement to the unambiguous agreement at issue.