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 trial courts

Delaware Superior Court

• 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.
• 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)).

Federal appeals courts

U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

• In re Energy Future Holdings Corp. (2020). The Third Circuit affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's confirmation of Energy Future Holdings' plan, ruling against the latent asbestos claimants (appellants) and for the reorganized EFH debtors.
• Threadgill v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (1991). The Third Circuit reversed the district court's denial of a new trial and remanded for a new trial on negligence and conspiracy, because the Sumner Simpson documents were wrongly excluded and the error was not harmless; the plaintiffs (Threadgill's widow and children) won against the Manville Fund.

U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

• Arnold v. Garlock, Inc. (2001). The Fifth Circuit denied Garlock's motions to stay the district courts' remand and dismissal orders pending appeal and dissolved its temporary stays, so the plaintiffs won and Garlock lost.

Federal district courts

U.S. District Court, District of Delaware

• Salvemini v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2025). A magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Buffalo Pumps (Air & Liquid Systems) on all claims, and granting in part and denying in part the motions of ConocoPhillips and Hess, so that Salvemini's own Jones Act, maritime and punitive damages claims survive while all claims over his wife's take-home exposure are dismissed.
• Roadarmel v. Curtiss-Wright Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2023). The magistrate judge recommended denying Curtiss-Wright's motion for summary judgment, so Plaintiff Patricia Roadarmel's claims over her husband's mesothelioma death could go forward.
• Thorne v. Crane Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2022). The magistrate judge recommended granting Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment against Rickey and Barbara Thorne on all claims, including loss of consortium and punitive damages.
• Gilstrap v. CBS Corporation (2021). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for defendants General Dynamics and Electric Boat against the Gilstrap plaintiffs, with prejudice, because plaintiffs offered no evidence of exposure to those defendants' products and did not respond to the motion.
• Cox v. Foster Wheeler (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2021). The district court overruled Foster Wheeler's objections, adopted the magistrate judge's Report, and denied Foster Wheeler's motion for summary judgment, so the Cox plaintiff's claims proceed.
• Cox v. Foster Wheeler (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2021). A magistrate judge recommended denying Foster Wheeler's motion for summary judgment on causation, failure to warn under Devries, and the government contractor defense, so plaintiff Doris Anne Cox's claims against Foster Wheeler would proceed.
• Cox v. Nash Engineering Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2021). The magistrate judge recommended granting Nash Engineering's unopposed motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Doris Anne Cox because there was no evidence Mr. Cox was exposed to a Nash product.
• Thorne v. Crane Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2021). The magistrate judge granted the defendants' (Crane Co., ITT, Johnson Controls and Metropolitan Life) joint motion and ruled that Iowa substantive law, not North Dakota law as the Thornes argued, governs all claims and defenses.
• Carnes v. General Dynamics Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2021). The magistrate judge recommended granting General Dynamics' motion for summary judgment against the Carnes plaintiffs because they produced no evidence that Mr. Carnes was exposed to an asbestos-containing product attributable to General Dynamics.
• In re Bestwall LLC (2021). The court denied Bestwall LLC's motions to transfer the subpoena disputes to the North Carolina Bankruptcy Court and granted the asbestos trusts' motions to quash, without prejudice to Bestwall reissuing narrower subpoenas with added protections.
• Pruitt v. Gardner Denver (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The district court overruled Gardner Denver's and Warren Pumps' objections, adopted the magistrate judge's Report, and denied both companies' motions for summary judgment against plaintiff John Pruitt.
• Pruitt v. Amdura (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for Amdura and BorgWarner Morse TEC, and denying summary judgment for Gardner Denver and Warren Pumps, in John Pruitt's mesothelioma suit.
• Pruitt v. Deere & Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for Taco, Terex and Trane, and partial summary judgment for Deere, against plaintiff John Pruitt, who did not oppose the motions.
• Vocciante v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2020). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Air & Liquid Systems Corp. and Flowserve US, Inc. against the plaintiffs, because the plaintiffs could not show that either defendant's products were a substantial factor in causing Mr. Vocciante's mesothelioma.