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.

Federal district courts

U.S. District Court, District of Delaware

• Evans v. Imo Industries, Inc. (2019). The court granted John Crane's motion to exclude Plaintiff's Navy expert, Captain Moore, only as to his testimony on Navy warning requirements, and denied it on Navy procurement, undisclosed reliance documents and asbestos exposure, so Plaintiff mostly prevailed.
• Evans v. John Crane, Inc. (2019). The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' motions in limine on collateral sources and wrongful death damages, denied John Crane's motion to exclude survival damages, denied its request for a bifurcated trial, and overruled its objections to the magistrate judge's ruling that plaintiff's Navy procurement expert was qualified.
• Mosher v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The magistrate judge recommended granting Air & Liquid Systems Corporation's (successor to Buffalo Pumps) motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs Kent and Cathy Mosher because the evidence did not show its pump was a substantial factor in causing his mesothelioma.
• Mosher v. ABB (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to all ten defendants (ABB, Aurora Pump, Crosby Valve, FMC, Gardner Denver, Gould Electronics, Pfizer, Siemens, Union Carbide and Warren Pumps) against plaintiffs Kent and Cathy Mosher, who did not respond to the motions.
• Rogers v. Asbestos Corp. Limited (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The district court overruled Rogers's objections, adopted the magistrate judge's Report, and granted summary judgment to Asbestos Corporation Limited and Charles A. Wagner Company, so Rogers lost his claims against both.
• Rogers v. Warren Pumps (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Warren Pumps, General Electric, Air & Liquid Systems, Charles A. Wagner Co., and Asbestos Corporation Ltd. against plaintiff Richard Rogers, because he could not show exposure to any defendant's product.
• Rogers v. Nosroc Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The magistrate judge recommended granting defendant Nosroc Corp.'s unopposed motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Richard Wayne Rogers because he offered no evidence of exposure to any Nosroc product.
• In re Imerys Talc America, Inc. (2019). The district court denied Johnson & Johnson's emergency motion for provisional transfer of about 2,400 talc cancer cases and its motion for immediate ex parte relief, ruling for the tort claimants' committee and the plaintiffs.
• Johansen v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to all fourteen defendants, such as Air & Liquid, Crosby, Flowserve and Warren Pumps, and rejecting plaintiff Johansen's claims because he did not respond to the motions or show his exposure to their products.
• Johansen v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019). The magistrate judge recommended granting Ford Motor Company's summary judgment motion on the negligence, failure-to-warn and punitive damages claims, because Johansen's brake exposure was de minimis and Ford owed no duty to warn about third-party replacement parts; this favors Ford over plaintiff Johansen.
• Thomas-Fish v. Avborne Accessory Group, Inc. (2019). The magistrate judge recommended granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend, because plaintiff Thomas-Fish did not plead facts supporting successor liability or punitive damages.
• Thomas-Fish v. Avborne Accessory Group, Inc. (2019). The magistrate judge recommended granting the defendants' (Avborne, Dover, Roller Bearing, Sargent entities) Rule 12(b)(6) motion, dismissing most counts without prejudice with 15 days to amend, and dismissing the ultra-hazardous product count with prejudice.
• Pieno v. Crosby Valve (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2018). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Crosby Valve, Fairbanks, BorgWarner Morse Tec, Flowserve and Warren Pumps against plaintiffs John and Dione Pieno, who did not respond to the motions.
• Kister v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2018). A magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Buffalo Pumps, Fairbanks, CertainTeed, Foster Wheeler, Union Carbide, Aurora and Pfizer, because Mr. Kister identified none of their asbestos-containing products and the plaintiff did not respond.
• Charlevoix v. Caterpillar, Inc. (2017). The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted summary judgment to John Crane Inc. and Fiat Allis North America, because the unopposed motions showed no evidence that Mr. Charlevoix was exposed to asbestos from their products.
• Evans v. CBS Corp. (2017). The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted the unopposed summary judgment motions of CBS, Crane, Union Carbide, Ingersoll Rand, FMC, McNally and Western Auto Supply against plaintiffs Icom and Johanna Evans.
• Evans v. Flowserve US Inc. (2017). The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and granted the unopposed summary judgment motions of Gardner Denver, Flowserve, Atwood & Morrill and Nash Engineering against plaintiffs Icom and Johanna Evans, because Mr. Evans identified no product made by any of them.
• Charlevoix v. Caterpillar (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2017). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Caterpillar, VIAD, Warren Pumps, Crane and Ford, because the plaintiff did not show exposure to asbestos from any of their products, so the plaintiff lost against all five.
• Evans v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2017). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Foster Wheeler and Warren Pumps because the Evans plaintiffs failed to show exposure to asbestos from either defendant's product that was a substantial factor in causing his mesothelioma.
• Evans v. John Crane (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2017). The magistrate judge recommended that the District Judge deny John Crane's motion for partial summary judgment on the Evans plaintiffs' punitive damages claim, because a factual dispute exists about what John Crane knew.
• Tallman v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2017). The magistrate judge recommended granting Foster Wheeler's motion for summary judgment against the plaintiff, finding no evidence that Mr. Tallman was exposed to asbestos from a Foster Wheeler product, and also recommended judgment on the punitive damages claim.
• Shaw v. Union Carbide Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2017). The magistrate judge recommended granting Union Carbide's unopposed motion for summary judgment against Ralph and Joan Shaw because Mr. Shaw did not identify a Union Carbide asbestos product.
• Denbow v. CBS Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2017). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for CBS Corporation/Westinghouse and Crane Co. against plaintiff Ellen Palmer, because she did not show Mr. Denbow was exposed to asbestos from their products.
• Charlevoix v. John Crane (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2017). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for John Crane Inc. and Fiat Allis North America against plaintiffs Marilyn and Stephen Charlevoix, who did not oppose the motions, because there was no evidence of exposure to either defendant's asbestos-containing product.
• In re Asbestos Litigation Evans v. Alfa Laval, Inc. (2017). The magistrate judge recommended granting the unopposed summary judgment motions of Gardner Denver, Flowserve, Atwood & Morrill and Nash Engineering against plaintiffs Icom and Johanna Evans, because Mr. Evans identified no product made by any of them.
• Evans v. Foster Wheeler Energy, Corporation (2016). The magistrate judge recommended denying the Evans plaintiffs' motion to remand, finding that Foster Wheeler, Westinghouse and Crane each established federal officer removal jurisdiction.
• Hillyer v. Mine Safety Appliances Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2016). A magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for Sarco and Air & Liquid Systems (Buffalo Pumps), granting it for MSA, Copes-Vulcan and Crane only on punitive damages, and otherwise denying it so the Hillyers' claims against those three proceed.
• Denbow v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (2016). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for Air & Liquid Systems Corporation and Georgia-Pacific against plaintiff Ellen Palmer, and dismissing them with prejudice, because plaintiff offered no product identification evidence and did not respond.
• In re Asbestos Litigation Charlevoix v. CBS Corporation (2016). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to CBS/Westinghouse, Goodyear, FMC/Northern Pump and Ingersoll Rand because the unopposed motions showed plaintiffs had no evidence of exposure to those defendants' products.
• Hillyer v. ABB (In re Asbestos Litigation Hillyer) (2016). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to ABB, CBS, BW/IP, Eaton, Union Carbide and Gould against the Hillyers, who did not oppose the motions.
• Malone v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2016). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Cummins, CBS (as successor to Westinghouse) and Foster Wheeler against Charles and Elizabeth Malone, while finding the learned intermediary and government contractor defenses did not independently warrant judgment.
• Shaw v. Andritz Inc. (2016). The magistrate judge granted the Shaws' motion to apply Connecticut substantive law and denied the defendants' motion to apply maritime law, because the locality test was not met.
• Wines v. Abb, Inc. (2016). The magistrate judge recommended granting the plaintiff's motion to remand to Delaware state court, finding Rockwell's removal timely but its federal officer removal basis unproven.
• Winhauer v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2016). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Honeywell and Ingersoll Rand and against the plaintiff, because the evidence did not show frequent, regular, proximate exposure to either company's asbestos-containing product.
• Winhauer v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2016). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to nine defendants (John Crane, Flowserve, Carver Pump, Velan Valve, Cleaver-Brooks, Sterling Fluid Systems, FMC, Crane Co. and Borg-Warner Morse Tec) and against the plaintiff, who filed no response.
• Malone v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2015). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for defendants Crane Co., Ingersoll Rand, Velan Valve, Zurn Industries and Pfizer, with prejudice, because the Malones filed notices of non-opposition, and recommended that the defendants' separate motion to dismiss be terminated as moot.
• 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.