DOVER, Del. (Legal Newsline) -The Delaware Supreme Court revived a woman’s lawsuit against the company that made a grinding device her late husband said he used decades before he was diagnosed with asbestos-related cancer, saying there was enough evidence for it to proceed.
The decision left an opening for plaintiffs who otherwise might have had their cases dismissed under a Delaware decision requiring them to identify the specific asbestos-containing products they were exposed to. In its March 28 decision, the state’s high court said plaintiffs can proceed with their case if they identify products that were likely to have contained asbestos, even if the company made the same items without asbestos.
Eric Droz sued Hennessy Industries after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer of the chest lining often associated with asbestos exposure. He claimed he used a Hennessy arc grinder in an auto repair shop from 1971 to 1973, where he ground brake pads made by Bendix, Wagner and Raybestos. Under Delaware law, as in other states, plaintiffs can sue companies for making machines that foreseeably would be used with asbestos-containing products.
Hennessy requested summary judgment under Stigliano v. Westinghouse, a Delaware decision that held when a plaintiff identifies a product that was made both with and without asbestos, he must prove exposure to the asbestos-containing products. It won dismissal of another case in Delaware on those grounds involving Bendix brake shoes.
This time, however, Droz had identified two other brake-shoe manufacturers whose products all contained asbestos at the time he claimed to be griding them on a Hennessy machine. That raised enough of a fact question for his widow’s case to survive summary judgment, the court concluded.