This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Ps allege personal and/or property damages as a result of a gas explosion. Ps sued D, which provided natural gas service to the residence from a buried natural gas transmission line and the City of Keyser (D), which provides sewage service to the residence through a buried sewer pipe that runs along the same street and near the gas transmission line, and (3) Parks Excavating Company (d), which was employed by Keyser (D) to do excavation and repair of Keyser's (D) sewer line in the area of the residence. Ps claims that Ds are jointly and severally liable for the damages. All of the defendants have filed cross-claims against each other, seeking indemnity and contribution. About six weeks before the explosion, Parks (D), while working on the sewer line, uncovered and then backfilled around D's gas transmission line. Parks (D) contends that he requested from D constant surveillance of his work during the portion of the excavation when the gas transmission line would be uncovered or exposed. Parks (D) also claims that D refused the request for help and explained that D was short-staffed and could not spare the manpower to survey the project. D apparently did perform some inspection of the excavation. An investigation of the explosion concluded that movement and strain on the gas transmission line from Parks' (D) excavation activities contributed to the failure of a compression coupling joining two sections of the gas line, which in turn led to the line's separation. Gas under pressure then apparently flowed through a nearby sewer line into the residence, after which the gas was ignited in an unknown fashion. D was advised to revise its operating procedures regarding the inspection of gas transmission lines that could be damaged by excavation activities. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment as to liability for all Ps against D, under a theory of strict liability. The circuit court also granted summary judgment on behalf of Keyser (D), finding that all claims against Keyser (D) were at least in part 'subrogation claims' and therefore barred by W.Va. Code, 29-12A-13(c) [1986], a portion of our Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Reform Act, W.Va. Code, 29-12A-1 to -18. D filed the instant appeal, asserting that the circuit court's two summary judgment rulings were erroneous.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.