U.S. District Court, District of Delaware: Asbestos Cases

Our case-law library holds 68 asbestos decisions from the U.S. District Court, District of Delaware (2005–2025). Each links to our summary and the full opinion.

• Kind of court: Federal district court

Decisions

• Malone v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2015). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for nine defendants (Air & Liquid Systems, Armstrong International, Atwood & Morrill, Blackmer Pump, Crown Cork & Seal, Flowserve, Nash Engineering, Trane US and William Powell) and dismissing them with prejudice because plaintiffs filed a notice of non-opposition.
• Malone v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2015). The magistrate judge recommended converting Huntington Ingalls Industries' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss into a Rule 56 summary judgment motion and giving the Malones 30 days to respond, because the company relied on an affidavit outside the pleadings.
• Davis v. Ace Hardware Corporation (2014). The magistrate judge recommended granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the Davises' complaint without prejudice for failing to file the medical report required by Florida's Asbestos Act, denying Paccar's separate motion to dismiss as moot, and granting a stay of discovery.
• Dougherty v. AO Smith Corporation (2014). The magistrate judge recommended granting the Doughertys' motion to remand to Delaware Superior Court, finding Crane's federal officer removal proper but declining supplemental jurisdiction after Plaintiffs disclaimed all Navy and federal-site claims.
• Homax Products, Inc. v. Old Magic Corporation (2014). The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that Homax Products lacked standing to pursue its indemnification, breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims against Old Magic, Alscott, Acme and the Zeilingers.
• Pavlick v. AM General (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation) (2014). The court granted AM General's motion for summary judgment because plaintiff Olga Pavlick offered no evidence that her husband worked on trucks made by AM General.
• Motions for Access OF Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC (2013). The District Court reversed the Bankruptcy Court's orders denying Garlock Sealing Technologies access to the Rule 2019 exhibits, ruling for Garlock over the law firms, asbestos claimant committees and reorganized debtors, subject to limits on Garlock's use of the information.
• In re WR Grace & Co. (2012). The district court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's approval of the Grace–CNA insurance settlement and its confirmation of Grace's Chapter 11 plan, rejecting the objections of the Libby Claimants, BNSF, Montana, Canada, Anderson Memorial Hospital, the Bank Lenders, Garlock and three insurers. In a short appended memorandum it denied Garlock's motion for a stay pending appeal.
• In re WR Grace & Co. (2012). The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's approval of the Grace–CNA insurance settlement and confirmed Grace's Chapter 11 plan with its two asbestos trusts and Section 524(g) channeling injunction, overruling all objections from the Libby Claimants, BNSF, Montana, the Crown, Anderson Memorial Hospital, Garlock, the Bank Lenders and the insurers.
• Pease v. Ford Motor Company (2012). The district court adopted the Special Master's report, rejected Crane Company's objections, and denied Crane's second motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiffs' claims against Crane continued.
• In re Asbestos Litigation v. Adel Wiggins Group (2009). The district court granted the Seitz plaintiffs' motions to remand to Delaware Superior Court, rejecting Bell Helicopter's and Northrop Grumman's federal officer removal because they showed no colorable federal defense.
• In re Grossman's, Inc. (2009). The district court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's ruling that the Van Bruntss' tort claims arose after the plan's Effective Date and were not discharged, but reversed as to the breach of warranty claims, which it held were discharged in favor of JELD-WEN; sanctions were denied.
• Kirks v. General Electric Company (2009). The district court denied the plaintiffs' motions to remand both cases to Delaware state court, holding that General Electric had established federal officer removal jurisdiction.
• Hopkins v. Plant Insulation Co. (2006). The District Court abstained from exercising jurisdiction over the California Action and denied Imperial Tobacco Canada's petition to transfer it to Delaware, so Flintkote, the committees and the Hopkins family won and ITCAN lost.
• In re Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (2006). The district court overruled the Unsecured Creditors' Committee's unfair-discrimination objection and found $3.1 billion a reasonable estimate of Armstrong's asbestos personal injury liability, so the plan did not unfairly discriminate against unsecured creditors, a result favoring the debtor and asbestos claimants.
• In re Federal-Mogul Global Inc. (2005). The district court estimated Turner & Newall's pending and future asbestos personal injury and death liability at $9 billion in the United States and £229 million in the United Kingdom, mostly adopting the claimants' expert's method over the Property Damage Committee's lower estimate, and denied withdrawal of the reference for plan confirmation.
• In re Federal-Mogul Global, Inc. (2005). The court estimated Turner & Newall's pending and future asbestos personal injury and death liability at $9 billion in the United States and £229 million in the United Kingdom, largely adopting the asbestos claimants' expert over the Property Damage Committee's expert.
• Owens Corning v. Credit Suisse First Boston (2005). The court estimated Owens Corning's total liability for all pending and future asbestos injury and death claims, including contract claims, at $7 billion, between the estimates urged by the claimants' side and the Banks' side.