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

• Olson v. Crane Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2011). The Delaware Superior Court granted summary judgment to defendants Crane Co. and CBS Corp. (Westinghouse) against plaintiffs, holding Idaho law would not make them liable for other manufacturers' asbestos-containing parts.
• Freeman v. Georgia-Pacific (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2011). The court denied Georgia-Pacific's motion for summary judgment because plaintiffs raised a genuine dispute of fact about whether Wilburn Freeman was exposed to Georgia-Pacific's asbestos-containing joint compound.
• Farrall v. Atlas Turner (In re Asbestos Litigation Limited TO Farrall) (2011). The court granted Atlas Turner, Inc.'s and Bell Asbestos Mines, Ltd.'s motions to dismiss, holding the 1982 release barred James Farrall's new mesothelioma claims; the plaintiffs lost.
• Turchen v. County Insulation Co. (In re Litigation) (2011). The court imposed a $25,000 Rule 11 sanction on plaintiffs' counsel Thomas Crumplar for misstating authority in opposing County Insulation's summary judgment motion, and referred the matter, including the McCardle-Desco briefing, to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
• Grenier v. General Motors Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2009). On remand from the Delaware Supreme Court, the Superior Court concluded that, despite factual errors in its earlier opinion, it properly denied General Motors' and Ford's motion to exclude plaintiffs' general causation expert testimony, so Grenier's experts remained admissible.
• In re Asbestos Litigation (2006). The court denied DaimlerChrysler's motion in limine to exclude the plaintiffs' experts on general causation, so the plaintiffs' experts may testify that automotive friction products increase the risk of asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma.
• Hudson v. Delmarva Power & Light Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation Hudson Trial Group) (2006). The court granted Delmarva Power & Light summary judgment on Hudson's claim for exposure at its Edgemoor plant and denied it for the Delaware City plant because the record on control was undeveloped.
• Farrall v. AC & S. Co., Inc. (1990). The court granted in part the plaintiffs' and Celotex's motions to alter the judgments, ruling that Celotex's liability is the verdict minus the greater of the total settlement payments or the released tortfeasors' combined fault share, so Celotex owed one plaintiff $323,750 on an $875,000 verdict.
• Sheppard v. AC & S. Co. (1985). The court granted the defendants' summary judgment motion on the statute of limitations as to Sheppard's pleural thickening claim, and denied it as to his pulmonary asbestosis claim, so he lost on one claim and won on the other.
• Nutt v. AC & S., Inc. (1983). The court granted du Pont's and Haveg's motions to dismiss the employees' lost-causes-of-action claims and the wives' consortium and mental anguish claims, and granted the supplier-defendants' motions to dismiss the wives' mental anguish claims and the fraud-based lost-claims counts (the latter with leave to amend under Rule 9(b)).