Delaware Supreme Court: Asbestos Cases

Our case-law library holds 20 asbestos decisions from the Delaware Supreme Court (1991–2023). Each links to our summary and the full opinion.

• State: Delaware
• Kind of court: State supreme court

Decisions

• Jordonek v. Hennessy Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2023). The Delaware Supreme Court refused Hennessy Industries' petition for an interlocutory appeal from the Superior Court's denial of summary judgment, so the case against Hennessy continues for plaintiff Estrada.
• Droz v. Hennessy Industries, LLC (2022). The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's summary judgment for Hennessy Industries and remanded, holding Shelley Droz raised a genuine issue of material fact that her husband was exposed to asbestos dust from grinding asbestos-containing brake drum shoes.
• Shaw v. American Friction (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's denial of the Shaws' motion to move the trial group, and the resulting dismissal, in favor of the defendants; two justices dissented.
• Knecht v. Ford Motor Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Ford's motion for judgment as a matter of law and its inconsistent-verdict challenge, but reversed on the excessive-damages ruling and remanded so the Superior Court could assess the full $40,625,000 verdict for new trial or remittitur; Ford won in part and Knecht won in part.
• Richards v. Copes-Vulcan, Inc. (2019). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Copes-Vulcan, Ford and Goodyear and the denial of the Richards' request to supplement their expert report or for reargument.
• Reed v. Nosroc Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2017). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's summary judgment for Nosroc, County Insulation, Asbestos Corporation Limited, Charles Wagner Co. and Bayer CropScience, against the Reed plaintiffs.
• Walls v. Ford Motor Co. (In re Asebestos Litigation) (2017). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment for Ford Motor Company, holding any error in the partial summary judgment on third-party replacement brake parts was harmless because the jury found Ford not negligent.
• Genuine Parts Company v. Cepec (2016). The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's denial of Genuine Parts' motion to dismiss, holding Delaware lacked personal jurisdiction over the Georgia corporation, so the Cepecs' claims against it were dismissed.
• In re Viking Pump, Inc. (2016). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the assignments of Houdaille's excess insurance rights to Viking and Warren, the exhaustion of the Liberty primary policies, and part of the defense-cost rulings. It reversed other defense-cost rulings and the Superior Court's trigger-of-coverage language, so the result favored Viking and Warren on most points but not all.
• Dabaldo v. Urs Energy & Construction (2014). The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's summary judgment for URS Energy & Construction and Crane Co. and remanded, holding the DaBaldos' asbestosis claim was timely.
• RT Vanderbilt Co. Inc. v. Galliher (2014). The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's $2,864,583.33 judgment for Galliher against R.T. Vanderbilt and remanded for a new trial, because of the missing jury instruction on the employer's duty of care and the prejudicial inadmissible testimony.
• Edmisten v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. (2012). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's grant of summary judgment to Greyhound Lines, Inc. against Virginia Edmisten, finding no sufficient evidence that Greyhound supplied asbestos-containing brakes or clutches.
• Dana Companies, LLC v. Crawford (2011). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed denial of Dana's and Zoom's motions for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, but reversed in part the denial of the plaintiffs' additur motion and remanded for reconsideration of the damages awards.
• Price v. EI DuPont de Nemours & Co. (2011). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's denial of Patricia Price's motion to amend her complaint as futile, ruling for DuPont and against the Prices.
• Rhodes v. Diamond State Port Corporation (2010). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's affirmance of the Industrial Accident Board's denial of the estate's workers' compensation petition, so Diamond State Port Corporation prevailed and Rhodes' estate lost.
• General Motors Corporation v. Grenier (2009). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the $2 million jury verdict for Grenier against Ford, upholding the trial court's admission of Grenier's expert causation testimony after remand and rejecting Ford's other claims of error.
• General Motors Corporation v. Grenier (2009). The Delaware Supreme Court remanded to the motion judge to reconsider the admissibility of the plaintiffs' general causation experts (Drs. Dodson and Lemen) because his factual findings misstated the record, leaving GM and Ford's challenge to the $2 million verdict for Grenier undecided for now.
• Riedel v. Ici Americas Inc. (2009). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for ICI Americas, holding ICI owed no duty to Lillian Riedel, who lost her take-home asbestos exposure claim.
• Roca v. EI du Pont de Nemours and Co. (2004). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's summary judgment for DuPont, General Motors, DaimlerChrysler and Rhone-Poulenc, holding that Roca waived his Section 343 claim by not raising it in his opening brief.
• Money v. Manville Corp. Asbestos Comp. Fund (1991). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's directed verdict for the Manville Trust Fund and Celotex (appeal stayed as to Celotex) against the five plaintiffs, who lost for lack of direct expert medical testimony on causation.