Ramsey v. Georgia Southern University Advanced Development Ctr
189 A.3d 1255 | Supreme Court of Delaware | 2018
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
A Delaware court ruled that asbestos product manufacturers must warn employers about the danger of take-home asbestos exposure—when workers bring contaminated clothing home and expose family members. The court found that spouses of exposed workers can sue manufacturers for injuries even if the manufacturer only communicated with the employer. The case was sent back to the lower court for trial. For construction subcontractors, this means asbestos product makers have a legal duty to provide clear warnings and safe handling instructions, and failure to do so can result in liability to workers' families.
Key Takeaways
- •If you work with asbestos-containing products, manufacturers must provide warnings about take-home exposure risks—not just workplace hazards. Demand these warnings in writing.
- •Manufacturers cannot escape liability by claiming they only warned your employer. They must ensure warnings reach workers and include safe laundering instructions for contaminated clothing.
- •Family members of workers exposed to asbestos can sue manufacturers directly. This expands potential liability and makes proper product warnings and handling procedures critical for your protection.
Manufacturers cannot be held liable to an employee's spouse if they provided sufficient warnings and safe laundering instructions to the employer.
Frequently Asked Question
Can a manufacturer be sued if my spouse got sick from asbestos I brought home on my work clothes?
Yes. Manufacturers have a legal duty to warn employers about take-home asbestos exposure risks and provide safe laundering instructions. If they failed to do this, your spouse may have a claim against the manufacturer, even though the manufacturer only dealt with your employer. The manufacturer cannot hide behind the excuse that they only communicated with your company.
Related Cases
Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Systems, Inc.
A manufacturer must indemnify an innocent seller for products liability litigation costs under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.002(a), even if the seller did not sell the particular defective product that injured the plaintiff, provided the seller qualifies as a 'seller' under the statute.
Associated Indemnity Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc.
A surety does not owe a common law duty of good faith to its principal, but good faith is a contractual condition precedent to indemnification, requiring proof of improper motive or willful ignorance rather than mere negligence.
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers
A premises owner that contracts for work performance and provides workers' compensation insurance to contractors' employees qualifies as a statutory employer entitled to the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act.
Gould Electronics Inc., F/k/a Gould Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc. v. United States of America Gould Electronics Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc.
Under the FTCA, Ohio law governs the jurisdictional inquiry for contribution and indemnity claims arising from a toxic tort settlement, and the United States would be liable for contribution but not indemnity under Ohio law.
Gilbert Texas Construction, L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London
A CGL policy's contractual liability exclusion bars coverage for breach of contract claims when the insured's only liability arises from contractual obligations assumed in the underlying contract, and the insured-contract exception does not restore coverage.
The Burlington Insurance Company v. NYC Transit Authority
An insurance policy's additional insured endorsement covering injuries "caused, in whole or in part" by the named insured's acts requires proximate causation, not mere "but for" causation, and does not cover injuries caused solely by the additional insured's negligence.