Delaware Asbestos Case Law

Asbestos decisions from Delaware's courts and the federal courts there: 172 cases in our library so far. For what the law requires today, see Delaware asbestos laws; for where exposure happened, see Delaware asbestos exposure sites.

State supreme court

Delaware Supreme Court

• 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.

State trial courts

Delaware Court of Chancery

• In re Reinz Wisconsin Gasket, LLC (2023). After a paper-record trial, the Court of Chancery held that petitioner Linda Cook showed good cause to appoint a receiver for the cancelled gasket company Reinz Wisconsin Gasket, LLC over its objection, deferred ruling on nullifying the certificate of cancellation, and ordered that she bear any unpaid receiver fees.
• Aiu Insurance Company v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation (2018). The court denied the motions to dismiss and for summary judgment on Counts I-V (audit right) because Section 2.3 is ambiguous, and granted PENAC, THAN and the Trust's motions to dismiss Count VI (offset rights), so the insurers lost Count VI.
• Viking Pump, Inc. v. Century Indemnity Company (2009). The court granted summary judgment to Viking Pump and Warren Pumps, holding they may exercise the insured's rights under Houdaille's excess policies and that liability is allocated on an all-sums basis, and denied the Excess Insurers' cross-motions.

Delaware Superior Court

• 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.