Does West Virginia have an implied warranty of habitability?

Statute and a court-recognized implied warranty, each doing independent work. Two sources say the same thing and then divide the work. W. Va. Code § 37-6-30 requires a landlord of residential property to deliver the dwelling unit and surrounding premises in a fit and habitable condition at the start of the tenancy and to keep them that way, and lists six further duties.

How long does a landlord have to make repairs in West Virginia?

No statutory day count — the notice and repair rules below govern. West Virginia states no notice period and no repair deadline anywhere in its landlord-tenant article: there is no day count to put on a calendar. What the law requires comes from Teller, which adopted the contract principle that the tenant is under an obligation to give the landlord notice of a deficiency or defect the landlord does not already know of, and gave the landlord a reasonable time to act.

Can a tenant repair and deduct in West Virginia?

No — no statute or decision authorizes it — No West Virginia statute lets a tenant repair a condition and take the cost out of the rent, and this is a refusal rather than an omission. Teller was asked the question directly, as a certified question on whether a tenant could repair defects after reasonable notice and an opportunity to the landlord and deduct the cost from rent, and the court declined: it found that only one of the many decisions adopting the implied warranty allowed the remedy and concluded that the wide range of contract remedies available to the tenant were adequate to enforce the warranty.

Can a tenant withhold rent for repair problems in West Virginia?

Only on conditions that commonly defeat it — see this page — How: withholding raised as a defense once the landlord sues; a court or agency escrow program — There is no statutory right to withhold rent, and no rent-deposit program a tenant can start. What exists is a defense and a court-supervised escrow the landlord asks for.

Can a landlord retaliate against a tenant who complains about repairs in West Virginia?

Protected by judicial doctrine; no statute — West Virginia has no retaliation statute of the kind most states enacted; the Supreme Court of Appeals said so itself in 1996, noting that West Virginia has no statute like the ones other states adopted. The only statutory text is a carve-out inside the summary-eviction article, section 55-3A-3(g), which limits an appellate court to money relief where the lease term has expired but preserves possession where there is an issue of title, retaliatory eviction, or breach of warranty.

Can a lease make the tenant responsible for repairs in West Virginia?

Not waivable — any qualifier is stated on this page. The habitability statute says nothing about waiver, and article 6 contains no anti-waiver clause and no provision letting a tenant take on the landlord's repair duties. The bar comes from Teller, where the court held that waivers of the implied warranty of habitability are against public policy, reasoning that allowing a tenant to waive it could amount to permitting the landlord to violate a statute, regulation or code enacted for the benefit of future tenants, adjoining tenants and landowners as well, and that no one can waive the obligations the law imposes on landlords or agree to let a landlord break the law.

What does West Virginia law require a landlord to repair?

Verified August 29, 2026 All West Virginia topics →

West Virginia landlords must deliver a rented dwelling and its surrounding premises in a fit and habitable condition and keep them that way, and the duty comes from a statute and a court-made warranty that say the same thing.

Cited to W. Va. Code § 37-6-30 (landlord to deliver premises; duty to maintain premises in fit and habitable condition) and 7 more cited sources · Verified August 29, 2026

W. Va. Code § 37-6-30 lists the duties, including compliance with health, safety, fire and housing codes, repairs, working heating, plumbing and electrical facilities, common areas and waste removal in multiple housing units, and running water, hot water and reasonable heat between October 1 and the last day of April for units on public utility connections. Teller v. McCoy supplies everything the statute leaves out. Rent and habitability are mutually dependent, so breach is a defense to an eviction or a suit for rent, and the tenant may either move out and stop owing rent or keep paying and sue for damages measured by the difference in rental value, plus annoyance and inconvenience. There is no notice period and no repair deadline in West Virginia law, only a duty to tell the landlord about a defect the landlord does not know of and a reasonable time to fix it. There is no right to repair and deduct — the court refused to create one — and no right to withhold rent, though a court may order rent paid into court on the landlord's motion. Retaliation protection is judge-made: a tenant has both a defense to eviction and an affirmative claim, limited to rights incidental to the tenancy.

West Virginia habitability & repairs at a glance

Where the duty comes from	Statute and a court-recognized implied warranty, each doing independent work
Duty source details	Two sources say the same thing and then divide the work. W. Va. Code § 37-6-30 requires a landlord of residential property to deliver the dwelling unit and surrounding premises in a fit and habitable condition at the start of the tenancy and to keep them that way, and lists six further duties. In Teller v. McCoy (1978) the Supreme Court of Appeals held that every written or oral lease of residential premises carries an implied warranty in the same terms, saying it intended to impose no greater burden than the legislature had and that the duty under the warranty and under the statute are identical. Reed v. Phillips, 192 W. Va. 392 (1994), puts it directly: section 37-6-30 is a statutory enactment of the landlord's implied warranty of habitability. The division matters because the statute states the duty and nothing else. Everything a tenant can actually do about a breach — the dependency of rent on habitability, the defense to eviction, the measure of damages, the bar on waiver, and court-supervised rent escrow — comes from Teller, which the court decided nine months after the statute took effect precisely so that it could deal with the topics the statute did not cover.
Who is covered	Statewide — no coverage split
Where the repair standards live	The statute itself lists specific standards
What must be kept in repair	The statute lists what the landlord must do: deliver the dwelling unit and surrounding premises fit and habitable at the start of the tenancy and maintain them that way; keep the property meeting the requirements of applicable health, safety, fire and housing codes, unless the failure is the fault of the tenant, the tenant's family, or someone on the premises with the tenant's consent; in multiple housing units, keep all common areas under the landlord's control clean, safe and in repair; make all repairs necessary to keep the premises fit and habitable, unless they were needed primarily because the tenant's side failed to take reasonable care; keep in good and safe working order all electrical, plumbing, sanitary, heating, ventilating and air-conditioning facilities and appliances, including elevators, that the landlord supplies or must supply by agreement or by law; and in multiple housing units, provide and maintain appropriate conveniences for removing ashes, garbage, rubbish and other waste. A multiple housing unit is defined as a dwelling containing a room or group of rooms inside a building forming more than one habitable unit for living, sleeping, eating and cooking, so the common-areas and waste-removal duties do not reach a single-family rental. Where the lease imposes a greater duty than the statute, the lease controls that part. One exclusion is easy to miss: a squatter, meaning someone occupying a unit without a rental agreement and without the tenant's authorization, is placed outside the whole of article 6 by section 37-6-31(b), and the habitability duty sits in article 6.
Heat standard type	A duty to supply heat or maintain temperatures while the unit is occupied
Heat standard details	For dwelling units supplied by direct public utility connections, the landlord must supply running water and reasonable amounts of hot water at all times, and reasonable heat between October 1 and the last day of April. The statute states no temperature. Two conditions ride with it: the duty is limited to units on direct public utility connections, and it does not apply where the unit is built so that the running water, heat or hot water is generated by an installation within the tenant's exclusive control. Outside the October-to-April window the heat duty is not stated in these terms, although a unit without working heating equipment can still fail the separate duty to keep heating facilities in good and safe working order.
Headline repair day count	No statutory day count — the notice and repair rules below govern
Notice and repair-window rules	West Virginia states no notice period and no repair deadline anywhere in its landlord-tenant article: there is no day count to put on a calendar. What the law requires comes from Teller, which adopted the contract principle that the tenant is under an obligation to give the landlord notice of a deficiency or defect the landlord does not already know of, and gave the landlord a reasonable time to act. Two limits ride with that. The breach must be material, and in judging materiality the fact-finder weighs housing code violations and deficiencies in light of their nature, how long they persisted, their effect on safety and sanitation, the age of the structure and the amount of rent charged. And a landlord is not answerable for a defect or deficiency caused by the tenant's own wrongful conduct. Section 37-6-30(c) adds that nothing in the section requires the landlord to make repairs while the tenant is in arrears in rent, a limit the court read narrowly, as explained below.
Repair and deduct	No — no statute or decision authorizes it — No West Virginia statute lets a tenant repair a condition and take the cost out of the rent, and this is a refusal rather than an omission. Teller was asked the question directly, as a certified question on whether a tenant could repair defects after reasonable notice and an opportunity to the landlord and deduct the cost from rent, and the court declined: it found that only one of the many decisions adopting the implied warranty allowed the remedy and concluded that the wide range of contract remedies available to the tenant were adequate to enforce the warranty. One justice wrote separately to say he was distressed that the majority failed to give the tenant a right to repair and deduct. A tenant who repairs and deducts anyway is acting outside any authority West Virginia law provides and stays liable for the full rent.
Rent withholding or escrow	Only on conditions that commonly defeat it — see this page — How: withholding raised as a defense once the landlord sues; a court or agency escrow program — There is no statutory right to withhold rent, and no rent-deposit program a tenant can start. What exists is a defense and a court-supervised escrow the landlord asks for. Because the lease is treated as a contract, Teller holds the covenant to pay rent and the warranty of habitability are mutually dependent, and that breach of the warranty may be a defense to an action for unlawful detainer or to an action for rent or damages. The eviction statute carries the same idea: section 55-3A-1(a)(3) names breach of a warranty or leasehold covenant as a ground the landlord's petition must describe, section 55-3A-2 lets the tenant raise any defense available in ejectment or unlawful detainer, and section 55-3A-3(b) requires the court to proceed to a hearing where a tenant answering a rent-arrears petition raises breach by the landlord of a material covenant on which the duty to pay rent depends. On escrow, Teller adopted the compromise from Bell v. Tsintolas Realty Co.: protective orders requiring the tenant in possession to pay rent into court during the case are not favored and are permitted only in limited circumstances, only on the landlord's motion, and only after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, with the landlord bearing the burden of showing an obvious need. The court weighs the rent alleged due, how many months have passed without even a partial payment, the reasonableness of the rent, the landlord's own monthly obligations for the premises, whether the tenant proceeds without paying fees, and whether the landlord faces a substantial threat of foreclosure, all balanced against the apparent merits of the tenant's defense; a strong tenant case can defeat the order outright, and the court may set the payment below the contract rent. The escrowed money covers only the period between filing and trial and is apportioned at trial, and courts may not release it to the landlord before final judgment without the parties' consent. One pay-in is mandatory rather than discretionary: under section 55-3A-3(d), a tenant granted a continuance must pay into court any periodic rent falling due during it.
Termination over habitability failures	Yes — supplied by court decisions — The tenant's exit right comes from Teller, which held that if a landlord breaches the implied warranty of habitability the tenant may vacate the premises, ending the obligation to pay rent, or may continue paying rent and bring an action or a counterclaim later to recover damages caused by the breach. No statute states a notice period, a cure window, or a form of notice for that election. One statutory termination right does exist but is narrow: under section 37-6-28, where buildings or structures on the leased premises that the tenant neither owns nor may remove are destroyed in whole or in part by fire or otherwise, without the tenant's fault or negligence, the rent is reduced reasonably until they are replaced with structures of as much value to the tenant, and if the landlord does not rebuild as soon as reasonably possible the tenant may, after a reasonable time, surrender possession and be relieved of all further liability for rent from the surrender. That section states no notice requirement and no day count, and it applies only unless the lease provides otherwise.
Essential-service remedies	No distinct treatment beyond the general duty — West Virginia gives heat, water and utilities no separate remedy, no faster clock and no substitute-service or substitute-housing right. The duties themselves are in the general habitability section — keeping heating, plumbing, electrical, sanitary, ventilating and air-conditioning facilities and appliances in good and safe working order, and supplying running water, reasonable hot water and seasonal heat where the unit has direct public utility connections — and a failure is handled like any other breach of the warranty, through the defense, the damages measure and the tenant's right to vacate. Deliberate utility shutoffs and lockouts by a landlord are a different subject, covered with the eviction rules.
Retaliation protection	Protected by judicial doctrine; no statute — West Virginia has no retaliation statute of the kind most states enacted; the Supreme Court of Appeals said so itself in 1996, noting that West Virginia has no statute like the ones other states adopted. The only statutory text is a carve-out inside the summary-eviction article, section 55-3A-3(g), which limits an appellate court to money relief where the lease term has expired but preserves possession where there is an issue of title, retaliatory eviction, or breach of warranty. The court treated that phrase as the legislature giving its approval to the defense, and built the doctrine on it. Two mechanisms now exist. Imperial Colliery Co. v. Fout (1988) holds that retaliation may be asserted as a defense to a summary eviction proceeding if the landlord's conduct is in retaliation for the tenant's exercise of a right incidental to the tenancy. Murphy v. Smallridge (1996) goes further and holds that a residential tenant may state an affirmative cause of action for retaliatory eviction on the same standard, and that the tenant does not have to keep living on the premises to preserve it — the court refused to rule that tenants must live in potentially dangerous conditions to keep a claim alive. No statute or decision states a presumption, a lookback period or a fixed damages measure for retaliation. — Protection is limited to the tenant's exercise of a right incidental to the tenancy, and that limit does real work. Complaining about unfit conditions is squarely inside it: the court has said that if the right to habitability is to have any meaning it must let the tenant complain about unfit conditions without fear of reprisal, and it found a tenant's report to a state environmental agency about the landlord's dumping on the leased property to be incidental to the tenancy. Activity unrelated to the tenant's property interest is outside it: a tenant whose eviction followed speech and association having nothing to do with the habitability of his premises could not use the defense.
Damages, penalties, and defenses	When the warranty is breached the tenant's damages are measured by the difference between the fair market value of the premises if they had been as warranted and the fair rental value of the premises as they actually were during the tenant's occupancy in the unsafe and unsanitary condition, and the tenant may additionally recover damages for annoyance and inconvenience proved to have resulted from the breach. The fact-finder answers two questions: whether the warranty was materially breached, and how much of the tenant's rental obligation was abated or offset by the breach. Materiality is judged on the nature of the housing code violations and deficiencies, how long they persisted, their effect on safety and sanitation, the age of the structure and the rent charged; a health department finding of a code violation, such as sink and bathtub waste discharging into the ground under the home, has been enough to make out a case that should have gone to the jury. The landlord's stated defenses are conditions that are the fault of the tenant, the tenant's family or someone on the premises with the tenant's consent, which the statute writes into two of the duties; lack of notice of a defect the landlord did not know about; and the tenant's own wrongful conduct as the cause. West Virginia's landlord-tenant article states no attorney-fee provision for a habitability claim — the fee provisions in this part of the code belong to other subjects — and it states no civil penalty and no rent multiple for a breach of the habitability duty.
Can the duty be waived or shifted	Not waivable — any qualifier is stated on this page
Waiver and delegation rules	The habitability statute says nothing about waiver, and article 6 contains no anti-waiver clause and no provision letting a tenant take on the landlord's repair duties. The bar comes from Teller, where the court held that waivers of the implied warranty of habitability are against public policy, reasoning that allowing a tenant to waive it could amount to permitting the landlord to violate a statute, regulation or code enacted for the benefit of future tenants, adjoining tenants and landowners as well, and that no one can waive the obligations the law imposes on landlords or agree to let a landlord break the law. The contrast inside the same article is worth knowing: the separate rent-abatement right for destroyed buildings in section 37-6-28 is expressly waivable, applying only unless the lease otherwise provides. And section 37-6-30(b) runs one way only, making a greater duty in the lease control over the statutory floor.
Leading court decisions	Teller v. McCoy, 162 W. Va. 367, 253 S.E.2d 114 (1978) — Held that a written or oral lease of residential premises carries an implied warranty that the landlord will deliver the dwelling unit and surrounding premises in a fit and habitable condition at the start of the tenancy and maintain them in that condition, and that because a residential lease is treated as a contract the covenant to pay rent and the warranty are mutually dependent. Breach may be raised as a defense to an action for unlawful detainer or for rent or damages; the tenant may vacate and end the rent obligation, or keep paying and sue or counterclaim later; damages are the difference between the fair market value as warranted and the fair rental value as the premises were, plus annoyance and inconvenience. The court also held waivers of the warranty against public policy, adopted a court-supervised rent-escrow practice available only on the landlord's motion after notice and a hearing, and declined to give tenants a right to repair and deduct. • Imperial Colliery Co. v. Fout, 179 W. Va. 776, 373 S.E.2d 489 (1988) — Held that retaliation may be asserted as a defense to a summary eviction proceeding under the eviction article if the landlord's conduct is in retaliation for the tenant's exercise of a right incidental to the tenancy, and that the protection reaches no further: speech and association unrelated to the tenant's property interest do not support the defense because they do not arise from the tenancy relationship. • Murphy v. Smallridge, 196 W. Va. 35, 468 S.E.2d 167 (1996) — Held that a residential tenant may state an affirmative cause of action for retaliatory eviction where the landlord's conduct is in retaliation for the tenant's exercise of a right incidental to the tenancy, and that a tenant does not have to continue living on the leased premises to preserve that claim. The court kept the limit that the right exercised must be incidental to the tenancy, and noted that West Virginia has no retaliation statute of the kind other states enacted. • Adams v. Gaylock, 180 W. Va. 576, 378 S.E.2d 297 (1989) — Applied the implied warranty to a mobile-home tenancy where a health department test showed the kitchen, bathroom and bathtub waste water discharged into the ground under the home, a condition that can cause health problems and violated health department regulations, and held that the tenants had made out a case of breach so that directing a verdict against them was error. The decision carries forward the warranty's terms and the factors for judging whether a breach is material.
Local rules	Local codes enter through the statute itself: section 37-6-30(a)(2) requires the landlord to maintain the leased property in a condition meeting the requirements of applicable health, safety, fire and housing codes, unless the failure is the fault of the tenant's side, so the municipal code where the property sits supplies much of the concrete standard. Housing code violations are also the raw material of the materiality test, which weighs their nature, how long they persisted, and their effect on safety and sanitation.

Cite this page: "Landlord Atlas, West Virginia Habitability & Repair Laws (verified August 29, 2026), landlordatlas.com/laws/habitability/west-virginia/" — free to cite and quote with a link (how these records are verified). Everything above is cited in the citations section below.

Notes and caveats

Being behind on rent does not switch off the duty — Section 37-6-30(c) says that nothing in the section requires the landlord to make repairs when the tenant is in arrears in payment of rent, and it is often read as suspending habitability for anyone behind on rent. Teller read it far more narrowly, and Teller came after the statute: the legislature enacted section 37-6-30 on March 11, 1978 and the court decided Teller on December 12, 1978 with subsection (c) in front of it. A footnote to the opinion says the legislature specifically rendered unavailable the contract remedy of specific performance to a tenant in arrears — that is, a court order compelling the repair. The rest survives, and the court said so in terms: a tenant may raise breach of the warranty as a defense to an unlawful detainer action even when the tenant is in arrears of rent. Tenants behind on rent keep the defense and the damages claim; what they lose is a court order forcing the work.
No repair and deduct, by decision rather than by silence — West Virginia is not a state that simply forgot to legislate a repair-and-deduct remedy. The question reached the Supreme Court of Appeals as a certified question in Teller and the court declined to create the remedy, holding that the ordinary contract remedies were adequate to enforce the warranty. One justice dissented on that single point. A tenant who repairs and subtracts the cost from the rent has no authority to point to.
The heat duty is seasonal and conditional — The statutory obligation is to supply reasonable heat between October 1 and the last day of April, with no temperature stated, and it applies only to dwelling units supplied by direct public utility connections, and not where the unit is built so that the heat, hot water or running water is generated by an installation within the tenant's own exclusive control. The separate duty to keep heating facilities in good and safe working order has no season.
Waiver is barred by the court, not the statute — The habitability section contains no anti-waiver clause; the bar on waiving the warranty comes from Teller's public-policy holding. That distinction matters because the neighbouring rent-abatement right for destroyed buildings, in section 37-6-28, applies only unless the lease otherwise provides, so a lease can take it away. The two must not be blurred.
The eviction statute carries part of the habitability defense — The habitability defense is not purely judge-made. Where a landlord petitions for possession alleging rent arrears and the tenant answers raising breach by the landlord of a material covenant on which the duty to pay rent depends, section 55-3A-3(b) requires the court to proceed to a hearing on that issue. The same article names breach of a warranty or leasehold covenant as a ground the landlord's own petition must describe, and lets the tenant assert any defense available in ejectment or unlawful detainer. The retaliation doctrine, by contrast, rests on a five-word carve-out in the appeal provision and nothing more.
Squatters sit outside the whole article — Section 37-6-31(b) provides that occupancy by a squatter is not governed by the provisions of the article — meaning all of article 6, the habitability section included. A squatter is defined as a person occupying a dwelling unit who is not entitled to under a rental agreement and is not authorized by the tenant, and the definition expressly does not include a tenant holding over in a periodic tenancy.
Where West Virginia has been quiet — Section 37-6-30 has not been amended since it was enacted in 1978. The landlord-tenant sections that did move recently belong to other subjects: a 2024 act added the squatter exclusion, and a 2025 act amended the eviction petition section, effective July 11, 2025. Two 2026 bills touching landlord-tenant sections both died in committee in February 2026, and neither concerned habitability.

Common questions: West Virginia habitability & repairs

Each answer is the verified value from the table above, restated as a direct answer. Free to quote with a link to this page.

Does West Virginia have an implied warranty of habitability?: Statute and a court-recognized implied warranty, each doing independent work. Two sources say the same thing and then divide the work. W. Va. Code § 37-6-30 requires a landlord of residential property to deliver the dwelling unit and surrounding premises in a fit and habitable condition at the start of the tenancy and to keep them that way, and lists six further duties.
How long does a landlord have to make repairs in West Virginia?: No statutory day count — the notice and repair rules below govern. West Virginia states no notice period and no repair deadline anywhere in its landlord-tenant article: there is no day count to put on a calendar. What the law requires comes from Teller, which adopted the contract principle that the tenant is under an obligation to give the landlord notice of a deficiency or defect the landlord does not already know of, and gave the landlord a reasonable time to act.
Can a tenant repair and deduct in West Virginia?: No — no statute or decision authorizes it — No West Virginia statute lets a tenant repair a condition and take the cost out of the rent, and this is a refusal rather than an omission. Teller was asked the question directly, as a certified question on whether a tenant could repair defects after reasonable notice and an opportunity to the landlord and deduct the cost from rent, and the court declined: it found that only one of the many decisions adopting the implied warranty allowed the remedy and concluded that the wide range of contract remedies available to the tenant were adequate to enforce the warranty.
Can a tenant withhold rent for repair problems in West Virginia?: Only on conditions that commonly defeat it — see this page — How: withholding raised as a defense once the landlord sues; a court or agency escrow program — There is no statutory right to withhold rent, and no rent-deposit program a tenant can start. What exists is a defense and a court-supervised escrow the landlord asks for.
Can a landlord retaliate against a tenant who complains about repairs in West Virginia?: Protected by judicial doctrine; no statute — West Virginia has no retaliation statute of the kind most states enacted; the Supreme Court of Appeals said so itself in 1996, noting that West Virginia has no statute like the ones other states adopted. The only statutory text is a carve-out inside the summary-eviction article, section 55-3A-3(g), which limits an appellate court to money relief where the lease term has expired but preserves possession where there is an issue of title, retaliatory eviction, or breach of warranty.
Can a lease make the tenant responsible for repairs in West Virginia?: Not waivable — any qualifier is stated on this page. The habitability statute says nothing about waiver, and article 6 contains no anti-waiver clause and no provision letting a tenant take on the landlord's repair duties. The bar comes from Teller, where the court held that waivers of the implied warranty of habitability are against public policy, reasoning that allowing a tenant to waive it could amount to permitting the landlord to violate a statute, regulation or code enacted for the benefit of future tenants, adjoining tenants and landowners as well, and that no one can waive the obligations the law imposes on landlords or agree to let a landlord break the law.

Citations

W. Va. Code § 37-6-30 (landlord to deliver premises; duty to maintain premises in fit and habitable condition) (verified 2026) Official source
W. Va. Code § 37-6-28 (destruction of buildings; abatement of rent) (verified 2026) Official source
W. Va. Code § 37-6-31 (exclusions from application of the article; squatters) · (b) (verified 2026) Official source
W. Va. Code § 55-3A-1 (petition for summary relief; breach of warranty as a ground) · (a)(3) (verified 2026) Official source
W. Va. Code § 55-3A-2 (defenses available) (verified 2026) Official source
W. Va. Code § 55-3A-3 (hearing on breach of a material covenant; rent paid in on a continuance; relief on appeal) · (b), (d), (g) (verified 2026) Official source
W. Va. Code ch. 37, art. 6 (landlord and tenant; full article text) (verified 2026) Official source
Reed v. Phillips, 192 W. Va. 392, 452 S.E.2d 708 (1994) (absence of a smoke detector in a rented one- or two-family dwelling is prima facie evidence of the landlord's negligence where the injury flows from the non-compliance) (verified 2026) Official source

How this record was verified: Direct reading of the West Virginia Code on the Legislature's official code site: every section of chapter 37, article 6 (all 31 sections) and article 6A (all six sections), and every section of chapter 55, article 3A, each read in full together with the per-section bill-history and signed-bill records the official site publishes; and the official reporter texts of Teller v. McCoy, 162 W. Va. 367 (1978), read in full including both separate opinions, Imperial Colliery Co. v. Fout, 179 W. Va. 776 (1988), Murphy v. Smallridge, 196 W. Va. 35 (1996), and Adams v. Gaylock, 180 W. Va. 576 (1989).