damages was not justified. On appeal, Modern Woodmen argues that even if Mr. Webb’s “conduct was tantamount to willful, wanton, or reckless,” Modern Woodmen should not have to pay punitive damages because they did not authorize or ratify the misconduct. In Syllabus Point 3, Warden v. Bank of Mingo, 176 W.Va. 60, 341 S.E.2d 679 (1985), we stated: “To sustain a claim for punitive damages, the wrongful act must have been done maliciously, wantonly, mischievously, or with criminal indifference to civil obligations. A wrongful act, done under a bona fide claim of right, and without malice in any form, constitutes no basis for such damages.” Syl. pt. 3, Jopling v. Bluefield Water Works & Improvement Co., 70 W.Va. 670, 74 S.E. 943 (1912). See Hayseeds, supra 177 W.Va. at 330, 352 5.E.2d at 80 (<HOLDING>); Syllabus Point 1, Shamblin v. Nationwide Mut.
holding that a refusal to sign an implied consent form is not a refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test for purposes of section 1547 holding that a further finding that the insured intended to injure the defendant would preclude any liability for the insurer for indemnification of compensatory or punitive damages holding refusal to sign hospital waiver of liability form is not a refusal under section 1547 holding that a refusal to grant such a petition should nevertheless be accompanied by reasons therefore holding that an insurer is not liable for punitive damages by its refusal to pay a claim unless such refusal is accompanied by a malicious intent to injure or defraud