F: (304) 347-1746
J.D., West Virginia University College of Law (1982)
- Top 10 percent of class
- The West Virginia Law Review
B.A., magna cum laude, Duke University (1979)
- Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
- U.S. District Courts for the Northern and Southern Districts of West Virginia
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
David Mohler has been trying cases for over 30 years and has tried more than 200 jury trials to verdict with more than a 90 percent success rate. He has successfully argued more than 10 cases at the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
David is also admitted in the U.S. District Courts for the Northern and Southern Districts of West Virginia and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
David has represented a wide variety of clients, including: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company; State Farm Fire and Casualty Company; AIG; Allianz; Allstate; Erie Insurance Company; Liberty Mutual; MetLife; Safeco; St. Paul; American Electric Power; Dravo Materials; EM Industries; J.C. Penney; Nationwide; Norton Industries; Rite Aid, Roadway; Rollins, Inc.; Ruby Tuesday, Inc.; Sears and Wendy’s, as well as various agencies, counties and subdivisions of the state of West Virginia.
Reported West Virginia Supreme Court Decisions:
- Beachum v. White, WL 3185152 (2013)
Estate of passenger, who died after jumping from driver's vehicle while arguing with him, brought action against driver. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals ruled it was inadmissible hearsay to play the video-recorded interview of the Defendant by the Sheriff in rebuttal to Plaintiff’s case.
- Sparks v. Groves, WL 3184920 (2013)
Plaintiff brought action after his home-constructed dune buggy was rear-ended by pickup truck. Mr. Mohler obtained a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, and convinced the Circuit Court to deny Plaintiff’s Motion for a new trial. Jury verdict was upheld by West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, and found the testimony by the deputy sheriff that a dune buggy was not roadworthy due to improper lighting was proper testimony.
- Courtney v. Elias, 2012 WL 3055448 (2012)
Plaintiff brought suit pursuant to the family purpose doctrine against father of driver whose vehicle struck Plaintiff’s. Mr. Mohler obtained summary judgment in favor of the father, which was upheld by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.
- State Farm v. McClanahan, 229 W.Va. 73, 726 S.E.2d 41 (2011)
Judgment appealed to West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals on issue of how to properly calculate prejudgment interest on a judgment or decree. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals ruled previous payments are to be offset prior to calculation of prejudgment interest.
- Spencer v. McClure, 618 S.E.2d 451 (2005)
Vehicle occupants involved in chain-reaction, multiple-car traffic accident brought personal injury action against motorist who failed to stop before colliding with vehicles at accident site. Mr. Mohler obtained a directed verdict in favor of the motorist, which was upheld by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, on the grounds that the Plaintiff failed to prove she was injured as a proximate result of the collision with the Defendant’s vehicle as opposed to the other two vehicles.
- Cook v. Cook, 607 S.E.2d 459 (2004)
Plaintiff motorist sought to obtain future damages based upon future Air National Guard wages and benefits that she allegedly lost. The Circuit Court denied the request, finding proof of permanent injury was required to claim future damages, and certified the question. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals disagreed with the Circuit Court and held that permanent physical impairment was not the only type of lasting consequence which would sustain an award of future damages, such as for future earnings.
- Hall v. Casto, 572 S.E.2d 912 (2002)
A plaintiff, represented by Mr. Mohler, brought a malpractice action against a chiropractor. At trial, and over Mr. Mohler’s objection, the Circuit Court allowed admission of an audiotape when an accurate copy had not been provided in response to Mr. Mohler’s discovery motion. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals agreed with Mr. Mohler, reversed the Circuit Court, and remanded the case for a new trial.
- Pauley v. Bays, 490 S.E.2d 61 (1997)
Plaintiff motorist requested a new trial on the issue of damages after the jury awarded her $20,000 in damages and found her to be 40% at fault. The Circuit Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion. Mr. Mohler, representing the Defendant, appealed. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals agreed with Mr. Mohler and held that the evidence supported the jury’s verdict.
- State ex rel. State Farm v. Canady, 475 S.E.2d 107 (1996)
State Farm, represented by Mr. Mohler, sought to appear in its own name as the plaintiff’s insurance carrier rather than to defend in the name of the uninsured motorist. The Circuit Court refused to allow State Farm to appear in its own name. In response, Mr. Mohler filed a writ of prohibition against the Circuit Court judge. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals granted the writ of prohibition and allowed State Farm to appear and defend in its own name.
- Johnson v. Garlow, 478 S.E.2d 347 (1996)
Plaintiff motorist brought action against driver of following vehicle to recover for injuries she sustained in a rear-end collision. The jury did not award any damages to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs appealed, and argued that Mr. Mohler impermissibly cross-examined plaintiff about prior accidents and impermissibly impeached the plaintiff’s witness. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals disagreed, and determined that Mr. Mohler’s questioning was permissible.
- State ex rel. State Farm v. Madden, 451 S.E.2d 721 (1994)
A pedestrian was injured in a slip and fall outside of Wendy’s. State Farm was joined as a defendant. Mr. Mohler, representing Wendy’s, sought writs of prohibition against the Circuit Court based upon evidentiary rulings. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals determined that State Farm could be joined as a defendant as long as certain claims against it were bifurcated, that the Circuit Court abused its discretion by prohibiting Wendy’s from cross-examining an allegedly disabled pedestrian regarding employment activities, and by prohibiting Wendy’s from eliciting testimony from a private investigator.
- Best Lawyers in America®, August 20, 2020
- August 15, 2019
- Defense Trial Counsel of West Virginia
- Defense Research Institute
- Kanawha County Bar Association
- Charleston City Council (1983-1995)