Delaware Superior Court: Asbestos Cases

Our case-law library holds 60 asbestos decisions from the Delaware Superior Court (1983–2024). Each links to our summary and the full opinion.

• State: Delaware
• Kind of court: State trial court

Decisions

• Burhenn v. Celotex Asbestos Settlement Trust (2024). The court granted the Celotex Asbestos Settlement Trust's motion to dismiss, holding that Joyce Burhenn's claim over her husband's mesothelioma death was untimely, so the Trust won and the plaintiff lost.
• Braxton v. J-M Mfg. Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2024). The court granted defendant J-M Manufacturing's motion for leave to designate responsible third parties, rejecting plaintiff Braxton's objections on pleading sufficiency, limitations timing and bankruptcy proofs of claim.
• C&d Contractors, Inc. v. McLaughlin (2023). The Superior Court granted in part and denied in part the Estate's motion, awarding it $27,490.00 in attorneys' fees at reduced hourly rates and $221.25 in costs against employer C&D Contractors.
• Jordonek v. Hennessy Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2023). The Superior Court denied defendant Hennessy Industries' request to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court of the earlier denial of its summary judgment motion, so plaintiff Estrada prevailed on this request.
• Jordonek v. Hennessy Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2023). The court denied Hennessy Industries' motion for reargument, so its earlier oral denial of summary judgment on the duty-to-warn claim stood and the plaintiff, Lisa Estrada, prevailed on this motion.
• Estate of Anderson v. American Seaboard Exteriors (2022). The Superior Court affirmed the Industrial Accident Board's denial of the Estate's workers' compensation claim against American Seaboard Exteriors, finding substantial evidence that Mr. Anderson was not injuriously exposed to asbestos at work and that the one evidentiary error was harmless.
• McLaughlin v. C&d Contractors (2022). The Superior Court reversed the Industrial Accident Board's use of the 1989 last-exposure date for the average weekly wage, affirmed its use of the 2017 diagnosis date for the maximum rate, and remanded, so the widow of William McLaughlin Jr. prevailed over C&D Contractors.
• Gibbs v. 84 Lumber Company (2020). The court granted Union Carbide Corporation's motion for summary judgment on the Gibbses' design-defect and failure-to-warn claims.
• Pearsons v. Heidelberg USA (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The court denied Heidelberg USA's summary judgment motion on causation, statute of repose and product misuse, and granted it only on the willful and wanton conduct claim, which Mrs. Pearsons did not contest.
• Petit v. Hennessy Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The Delaware Superior Court granted Hennessy Industries' motion for summary judgment against the Petit plaintiffs, because plaintiff did not show exposure to asbestos-containing brakes or to friable asbestos with the AMMCO machines.
• Knecht v. Ford Motor Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2020). On remand from the Delaware Supreme Court, the Superior Court denied Ford Motor Company's motion for a new trial or remittitur, leaving the $40.625 million compensatory verdict for Paula Knecht in place.
• Stimson v. AO Smith Corporation (2020). The court denied plaintiff Janet Stimson's motion for a new trial after a jury verdict for defendant Cleaver-Brooks, finding the verdict not against the weight of the evidence and the jury-confusion argument unpreserved and meritless.
• Weddle v. BP Amoco Chemical Company (2020). The court granted in part the claimant estate's application for attorneys' fees for the successful appeal from the Industrial Accident Board, awarding $31,530 at rates lower than the $42,860 requested; BP Amoco, the employer, was ordered to bear the award.
• Stimson v. J-M Mfg. Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The court denied Janet Stimson's motion for reargument, leaving in place summary judgment for J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. on product identification.
• Rowland v. Union Carbide Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The Delaware Superior Court granted Union Carbide's motion for summary judgment against Jane and Douglas Rowland because they could not show that the joint compound they used contained Union Carbide's asbestos.
• Knecht v. Ford Motor Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The Delaware Superior Court denied Ford Motor Company's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, its alternative motion for a new trial, and its motion for a new trial or remittitur, leaving the plaintiff's jury verdict in place.
• Robinson v. Union Carbide Corporation (2019). The Delaware Superior Court granted Union Carbide's motion for summary judgment against Marianne Robinson, ruling for Union Carbide on both the failure-to-warn claim and the Ohio strict liability claim.
• Weddle v. BP Amoco Chemical Company (2019). The Superior Court reversed the Industrial Accident Board's dismissal of the mesothelioma compensation petition against BP Amoco and remanded, holding the 1982 asbestosis settlement did not bar the claim.
• Call v. Ford Motor Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2018). The court granted Ford Motor Company's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Marilyn Kay Call, holding Indiana's "but for" causation standard applies and her expert's opinion did not meet it.
• Richards v. Copes-Vulcan (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2018). The court denied the Richards plaintiffs' motion for leave to supplement their expert's report and for reargument, leaving in place summary judgment for Copes-Vulcan, Fairbanks, Ford and Goodyear.
• Kivell v. Georgia Pacific Consumer Prods. LP (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2018). The court granted Georgia Pacific's motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that Sandra Kivell's wrongful death and survival claims were time barred under Louisiana's one-year limit.
• Sykes v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2018). The Superior Court affirmed the Special Master's order excluding William Don Sykes's videotaped trial deposition at trial, a ruling for the defendants and against the plaintiff estate.
• Walsh v. Aurora Pump Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2017). The court granted Aurora Pump Company's motion for summary judgment against Phillip and Naomi Walsh because they did not show that Mr. Walsh was exposed to asbestos from Aurora's products.
• Leathers v. Pneumo Abex (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2017). The court denied Pneumo Abex LLC's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff Raymond Leathers' claims against Abex go forward to trial.
• Walsh v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2017). The court granted summary judgment to Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (successor to Buffalo Pumps) against plaintiffs Phillip and Naomi Walsh, finding no evidence Mr. Walsh was exposed to asbestos parts the defendant was responsible for.
• Kivell v. Air Prods. and Chemicals (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2017). The court granted Air Products and Chemicals Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on the negligence, strict liability and wrongful death claims, ruling against plaintiff Sandra Kivell.
• Kivell v. Union Carbide Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2017). The Delaware Superior Court granted Union Carbide's motion for summary judgment on Sandra Kivell's negligence and strict liability claims, so Union Carbide won and the plaintiff lost.
• Kivell v. Murphy Oil USA (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2017). The court granted Murphy Oil USA Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on the negligence and strict liability claims brought by Sandra Kivell, so the plaintiff lost.
• Harris v. Deere & Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2017). The court granted Deere & Company's motion for summary judgment, ruling for Deere against the plaintiff, because under North Carolina law the plaintiff offered no evidence beyond speculation that the asbestos-containing parts he worked on were made or sold by Deere.
• In re Asbestos Litigation Sturgill v. 3M Company, Inc. (2017). The court granted Union Carbide Corporation's motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs Larry and Jill Sturgill because the record did not show Mr. Sturgill was exposed to Union Carbide's asbestos in the joint compounds he used.
• Tetteh v. Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc. (2016). The court granted summary judgment to AT&T Corp. and rejected the claim by Danielle Tetteh, individually and as administrator of Daniel Jones' estate, that the parent company was liable for Jones' mesothelioma.
• Muse v. Honeywell Int'l (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2014). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reargument, leaving in place summary judgment for Honeywell International Inc. against James Muse and Clarice Roberts-Muse.
• Mine Safety Appliances Company v. Aiu Insurance Company (2014). The court granted MSA's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that the expected/intended provision in the North River, Hartford and Travelers policies does not bar coverage for claims over MSA's allegedly defective respirators, and denied the insurers' requests for more discovery.
• Farrall v. Ford Motor Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2013). The court denied the plaintiff's motion for reargument, leaving in place its grant of summary judgment for Ford Motor Company on the failure to warn claim about asbestos-containing replacement parts.
• Phillips v. Hoffman/New Yorker (In re Asbestos Litigation Phillips) (2013). The court denied Hoffman/New Yorker's motion for summary judgment, holding Virginia law can impose a duty for asbestos in third-party replacement pads and that the record on whether Phillips was exposed to asbestos pads was too unclear to resolve; Plaintiff Phillips prevailed on the motion.
• Galliher v. R. T. Vanderbilt (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2012). The court allowed plaintiff's late-disclosed geologist (Fitzgerald) to testify, excluded plaintiff's other late expert (Dr. Rigler), continued the trial to July 16, 2012 so defendant R. T. Vanderbilt could develop rebuttal evidence, and sanctioned defendant's out-of-state counsel $5000.
• McCoy v. PolyVision Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2012). The court granted summary judgment to PolyVision Corp. against Janine and Marvin McCoy, predicting Pennsylvania law imposes no duty on an employer or premises owner to an employee's spouse for take-home asbestos exposure.
• In re Geier (2012). The Superior Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff Douglas Geier's mesothelioma suit for forum non conveniens, finding they had not shown overwhelming hardship, and set a later hearing on costs under Rule 41(d).
• Martinez v. EI DuPont De Nemours and Co. (2012). The court granted DuPont's motion to dismiss the Argentine widow's asbestos suit, holding that she sued the wrong party, failed to plead a viable direct claim, failed to join the indispensable Argentine subsidiary, and that forum non conveniens also required dismissal.
• Gordon v. Dana Companies (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2011). The court granted summary judgment to Dana (Victor gaskets) and UOP, and denied summary judgment to Elliott, Armstrong and Born, so the plaintiffs' claims against those three go forward.
• Clineff v. BP Amoco Chemical Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2011). The court granted summary judgment to BP Amoco Chemical Company, BP Corporation North America Inc., and Kvaerner U.S. Inc. because the plaintiffs' claims were filed after the two-year limitations period expired.
• Davis v. Crane Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2011). The court granted Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Wesley Davis, finding he had not shown Crane-supplied asbestos products were a substantial factor in causing his mesothelioma.
• Foucha v. Georgia-Pacific (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2011). The court granted Georgia-Pacific's motion for summary judgment against Raymond and Sussanah Foucha because they could not show without speculation that Foucha was exposed to asbestos from Georgia-Pacific joint compound.
• Bowser v. Parker-Hannifin Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2011). The court granted Parker-Hannifin's summary judgment motion in part (strict liability count and helicopter brake exposures before 1967) and denied it as to the airplane brake claims, so Plaintiff Jenny Bowser's remaining claims proceed.
• Foucha v. CertainTeed Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2011). The court granted CertainTeed Corp.'s motion for summary judgment, ruling against plaintiffs Raymond and Sussanah Foucha because they lacked evidence that he was exposed to an asbestos-containing CertainTeed product.
• Henderson v. Dana Companies (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2011). The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' post-trial motion for costs against Dana and Zoom, awarding $14,597.12 in costs plus pre- and post-judgment interest.
• Newman v. Avocet Enterprises (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2011). The court denied Avocet Enterprises' motion for summary judgment on the Newmans' remaining claims, because Newman's testimony about using Ventbestos raised a factual dispute on causation, and found the motion moot as to the withdrawn conspiracy claim.
• James v. Albany Int'l (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2011). The court granted Albany International's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Charlene James because there was no non-speculative evidence that Robert James was exposed to an asbestos-containing Albany product.
• Ashworth v. Pneumo Abex (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2011). The court granted Pneumo Abex's summary judgment motion on the survival action as time-barred, but denied it on the wrongful death claim, which was timely and had factual disputes on causation and product identification.
• Cruz v. Georgia-Pacific (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2011). The court granted Georgia-Pacific's motion for summary judgment, ruling that plaintiffs could not show under Texas law that exposure to its Ready Mix joint compound was a substantial factor in causing Cruz's mesothelioma.