Marc Sposato of MOODK’s Delaware office obtained an early dismissal for his client, a volunteer fire department, in an action alleging negligence arising out of the rescue of passengers in a trapped elevator.  Plaintiff alleged that the fire department, while evacuating passengers trapped in an elevator, failed to maintain the elevators and premises in a reasonable and safe condition and to take reasonable steps to make the premises safe, causing Plaintiff to fall and suffer injury. Plaintiff sought recovery for past and future medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and punitive damages.  MOODK filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the fire department was immune from negligence claims pursuant to Delaware’s Municipal Tort Claims Act, for actions taken during the rescue of passengers.  The fire department was dismissed from the action

Dawn Doherty of MOODK’s Delaware office successfully obtained an Order dismissing the Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and his Motion for Sanctions against the firm in federal District Court.  The pro se Plaintiff, who is a licensed attorney in New York State, was arrested for Third Degree Assault and Offensive Touching.  He claimed he was falsely arrested and, when in a holding cell at the Defendants’ police station, claimed his civil rights were violated due to the use of excessive force.  Plaintiff further alleged the arresting officers intentionally inflicted emotional distress and, as a result of Plaintiff’s false arrest, caused his marriage to fail.  After two successful Motions to Dismiss for failure to state a claim, Plaintiff was granted leave to amend his original Complaint and his First Amended Complaint.  Plaintiff failed to cure the deficiencies that both the Defendants and the court pointed out and, therefore, the court granted Defendants’ third Motion to Dismiss.  Plaintiff then attempted to appeal the District Court’s ruling to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.  However, the Third Circuit ultimately denied Plaintiff’s appeal and dismissed the case with prejudice. 

Eileen Ford of MOODK’s Delaware office obtained dismissal on summary judgment for two boiler manufacturer clients in two separate (consolidated) asbestos cases.  The Plaintiffs (two brothers)  alleged asbestos exposure to exterior insulation on boilers when they owned and operated a conglomerate of laundry businesses in Florida from the late-1960s into the mid-1980s.  Motions for summary judgment were filed on behalf of both clients on the basis that Plaintiff’s failed to provide sufficient evidence that the exterior insulation was a product manufactured by the clients as required pursuant to Florida’s Asbestos and Silica Act and/or the application of the bare-metal defense which the clients argued was the substantive law in Florida.  Alternatively, it was argued that because Plaintiffs could not place a particular boiler at any of their conglomerate locations (i.e. name recognition only), that they could not meet the “substantial factor exposure” requirement under Florida law.  Ultimately, the Court granted summary judgment on the grounds that it was Plaintiffs’ conglomerate that actually purchased the alleged asbestos-containing asbestos, and since they did not know the manufacturer of that insulation, could not quantify how often they present when insulation was removed or installed, summary judgment was granted.  The Court determined it did not need to reach the issue of predicting how Florida Supreme Court would rule on the bare-metal defense argument.    

Marks, O’Neill’s Delaware office obtained favorable summary judgment rulings in two asbestos matters pending in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, New Castle County. The motions were presented by Eileen Ford, Esquire.

In both matters, Plaintiffs alleged exposure to asbestos from their time serving in the US Navy. Summary judgment motions were filed on the basis that there was insufficient product identification to meet the initial element of Maritime law, namely that the plaintiff was exposed to a product manufactured by the defendant (i.e. Lindstrom factors). Plaintiffs opposed both motions on the basis that the record contained adequate evidence of Plaintiffs’ work with and/or around the defendants products, however, spent the majority of their oppositions arguing that pursuant to Air & Liquid Sys. Corp v. DeVries, the 2019 United States Supreme Court ruling, the duty to warn factors are primary factors to be considered, before the Lindstrom product nexus and substantial factor requirements are addressed.  The Superior Court Judge disagreed and ruled that it did not need to reach the DeVries analysis because there is insufficient evidence that Plaintiff met  the first element of Lindstrom (i.e. no evidence of exposure to defendants product).