Christopher C. Wilkes
How Judge Wilkes rules, drawn from 15 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Wilkes
Christopher C. Wilkes has served on the West Virginia Business Court Division since it opened in 2012 and now serves there as a senior status judge. He was a circuit judge in the state’s Eastern Panhandle from 1993 until 2019. He earned degrees from West Virginia University and Ohio Northern University Pettit College of Law.
Judge Wilkes's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Wilkes's own (checked October 11, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
How Judge Wilkes decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Axiall Corp. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co., Wilkes granted the insureds summary judgment on the insurers' corrosion-exclusion defense after a sudden chlorine tank-car rupture. He read the exclusion in its policy context as addressing gradual causes, and struck that defense.
“Plaintiffs contend said policy exclusion for corrosion is actually an industry standard ‘wear-and-tear’ exclusion that excludes coverage for non-fortuitous, non-sudden-and-accidental, ‘gradually-operating causes’ ... The Court finds that summary judgment must be granted in Plaintiffs' favor ... on the Defendants' corrosion exclusion defense.”
In Covestro, LLC v. Axiall Corporation, he adopted a related Pennsylvania court's ruling that evidence of the same conduct was legally insufficient to submit punitive damages to a jury.
“The evidence of conduct presented in the Pennsylvania action, the same evidence of conduct that will be used in this case, was considered by Judge Ward, and was determined to be legally insufficient to submit the issue of punitive damages to the jury ... Accordingly, this Court adopts Judge Ward's ruling regarding punitive damages.”
In WW Consultants, Inc. v. Pocahontas County Public Service District, Wilkes granted partial summary judgment on professional-negligence counterclaims whose alleged breaches lacked supporting expert testimony. He held that expert evidence was needed to establish the professional standard of care, subject to a narrow common-knowledge exception.
“The Court finds it implicit in professional negligence actions that an expert has to establish what the standard of care is. Only in extremely limited circumstances is the common knowledge exception applicable.”
Procedural preferences
In AllTranstek, LLC v. Axiall Corp., Wilkes decided a motion to dismiss or stay on the written submissions after finding oral argument unnecessary. He denied the motion in a written order.
“The Court dispenses with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.”
In WW Consultants, Inc. v. Pocahontas County Public Service District, Wilkes denied a Rule 59(e) motion challenging his earlier dismissal of third-party claims. He found the movant had not shown a clear legal error or another ground to alter the judgment.
“WWC's arguments in the instant motion simply do not demonstrate a clear error of law upon which to alter or amend a judgment.”
In Axiall Corp. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co., Wilkes resolved opposing summary-judgment motions on a corrosion-exclusion defense in one order. He granted the insureds' motion to strike the defense and denied the insurers' motion to enforce it.
“It is further hereby ADJUDGED and ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Concerning Enforcement of Corrosion Exclusion is hereby DENIED.”
Cautions
In WW Consultants, Inc. v. Pocahontas County Public Service District, Wilkes denied Orders Construction's summary-judgment motion on contractual indemnity. Photographs showed pipes installed by Orders in locations that differed from the design drawings, creating a genuine factual dispute; discovery was also ongoing.
“The Court finds this evidence in the record that the pipes are not in conformity with the drawings creates genuine issue of material fact with regard to Orders' indemnity.”
In WW Consultants, Inc. v. Pocahontas County Public Service District, he denied a request for fees based on allegedly vexatious conduct after finding that genuine factual disputes defeated the moving party's summary-judgment request and that maintaining the claims was not in bad faith.
“In finding summary judgment cannot be awarded in Orders' favor, and that genuine issue of material fact exists, this Court must also find that it was not in bad faith for WWC to maintain its claims.”
In Covestro, LLC v. Axiall Corporation, he declined to use a damages figure from a related Pennsylvania action because Covestro's damages claims were different from Axiall's claims there.
“But, unlike the conduct issue between these Defendants decided by the Pennsylvania jury, Covestro's damages are not identical to Axiall's damages in the Pennsylvania action. Simply put, the damage claims are different.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Summary judgment is granted in favor of the Plaintiff as to Paragraphs 12(a), 12(b), 12(d), 12(f), 12(g), 12(h), 12(i), 12(j), 12(k), 12(l), 12(n), 12(o), 12(p), 12(q), 12(r), 12(v), 12(y), 12(z), 12(aa), and 12(bb) of PSD's Counterclaim, contained in its cause of action for professional negligence (Count I).”
“For all of these reasons, the Court finds and concludes that the contribution claim must be dismissed.”
“In conclusion, for all of the foregoing reasons, the Court finds the instant A-3 USA, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Third-Party Complaint must be granted. Therefore, there being no remaining causes of action against it, Third-Party Defendant A-3 USA, Inc. must be dismissed with prejudice from this civil action.”
“Accordingly, regardless of whether the 180-day period or the remaining time on the statute of limitations applies, WWC's Third-Party Complaint, filed more than three years after the substantial completion and more than two years after the filing of the original counterclaim, is untimely. So, its negligence claims, contained in paragraphs 15-19, of the Third-Party Complaint must be dismissed.”
“For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court finds the instant Pipe Plus, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment must be granted. Therefore, there being no remaining causes of action against it, Third-Party Defendant Pipe Plus, Inc. must be dismissed with prejudice from this civil action.”
“Accordingly, the Court declines to reconsider or alter or amend its determinations contained in its March 30, 2021 Order Granting A-3, USA, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Third-Party Complaint. The Court finds that A-3's request for dismissal of the third-party complaint against it was properly granted, and declines to alter said dismissal.”
“The Court finds this evidence in the record that the pipes are not in conformity with the drawings creates genuine issue of material fact with regard to Orders' indemnity. ... For all of these reasons, the Court finds Orders' motion must be denied.”
“For this reason, Orders Construction Company, Inc.'s Motion for Fees and Costs for Vexatious and Bad Faith Litigation Conduct must be DENIED.”
“the motion is denied as to the collateral source rule in that the PSD is permitted to prove the amount of damages in connection with proving its claims at the heart of this civil litigation.”
“the motion is granted as to the motion's request that the Court should preclude the PSD from introducing grants as evidence of damages at the trial.”
“The Court finds that enough examples of evidence in the record in this case was proffered to show that Triad breached its contractual obligations for obtaining plat approval for the project at the heart of this litigation, and the Court concludes that no genuine issues of material fact remain regarding this particular issue. For this reason, the Court finds it appropriate to grant summary judgment as to liability as to the Breach of Contract cause of action.”
“With regard to the negligence cause of action, Count I, the Court finds genuine issue of material fact remain regarding the issue of professional negligence. The Court dispenses with finding on the issue of negligence at this time and finds that issues regarding the actions relating to the breach, and the particular standards of care applied as to professional engineers and surveyors, shall be presented at the bench trial.”
“For all of these reasons, at this stage, the Court finds this action must survive the motion to dismiss stage. ... Accordingly, it is hereby ADJUDGED and ORDERED that Axiall Corporation's Combined Motion to Dismiss or Stay Complaint for Declaratory Judgment is hereby DENIED.”
“For all of these reasons, the Court finds Axiall's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Damages is hereby DENIED.”
“The evidence of conduct presented in the Pennsylvania action, the same evidence of conduct that will be used in this case, was considered by Judge Ward, and was determined to be legally insufficient to submit the issue of punitive damages to the jury. ... For these reasons, this motion is GRANTED.”
“This Court now CLARIFIES that the Covestro is also not entitled to recover punitive damages against Axiall as a matter of law. ... The Court now clarifies that this decision applies to all Defendants in this matter, including Axiall. Axiall's joinder is therefore GRANTED.”
“The Court concludes it shall deny the request for setoff, but Defendants are entitled to subrogate Plaintiffs' rights against the tortfeasors in the amount of negligence that the Pennsylvania jury determined. ... Accordingly, it is hereby ADJUDGED and ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Setoff is hereby DENIED.”
“Summary Judgment is granted in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants as to Count I (Declaratory Judgment) and Count II (Breach of Contract); Plaintiffs are awarded breach of contract monetary damages in the amount of $2,150,000.00 (calculated as the $5,900,000.00 property damage amount adopted by this Court's collateral estoppel ruling, minus the applicable deductible of $3,750,000.00).”
Draft for Judge Wilkes with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Wilkes, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Wilkes's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace