In Public Citizen, Inc. v. First National Bank in Fairmont, 198 W.Va. 329, 480 S.E.2d 538 (1996), the Court utilized a two-pronged analysis and determined that an amendment to the Uniform Commercial Code statute regarding payment of instruments with joint payees could not be applied retroactively. First, the Court asserted that a determination must be made regarding whether the new provision would, "if applied in a pending case, attach a new legal consequence to a completed event." 198 W. Va. at 335, 480 S.E.2d at 544. Second, such new provision would not be applied "unless the Legislature has made clear its intention that it shall apply." Id., 480 S.E.2d at 544. The Court explained that such examination requires deliberation of "a principle deeply rooted in our jurisprudence that absent some clear signal from the Legislature, a statute will not apply retroactively." Id., 480 S.E.2d at 544. The Court further explained: "In unbroken precedent, this Court has stated 'a statute is presumed to operate prospectively unless the intent that it shall operate retroactively is clearly expressed by its terms or is necessarily implied from the language of the statute.'" Id., 480 S.E.2d at 544. The Court held that: Under West Virginia law, a statute that diminishes substantive rights or augments substantive liabilities should not be applied retroactively to events completed before the effective date of the statute (or the date of enactment if no separate effective date is stated) unless the statute provides explicitly for retroactive application. To be specific, this means that, unless expressly stated otherwise by the statute, such a statute will not apply to pending cases or cases filed subsequently based upon facts completed before the statute's effective date. In contrast, remedial and procedural provisions are applied normally to pending cases despite the absence of a clear statement of legislative intent to do so. In these situations, the reliance interest that is the foundation of the interpretive principle limiting retroactive application is not engaged. But even here the procedural/substantive distinction is not talismanic. The test of the interpretive principle laid down by the United States Supreme Court in Landgraf is unitary. It is whether the "the new provision attaches new legal consequences to events completed before its enactment." If a new procedural or remedial provision would, if applied in a pending case, attach a new legal consequence to a completed event, then it will not be applied in that case unless the Legislature has made clear its intention that it shall apply. We have provided that the general rule of prospective application may be relaxed for procedural or remedial statutes, and in cases where an amended statute incorporates common law that existed before the amendment to the statute. (198 W. Va. at 334-335, 480 S.E.2d at 543-44.)