Ramsey v. Georgia Southern University Advanced Development Ctr
189 A.3d 1255 | Supreme Court of Delaware | 2018
Holding Summary
Asbestos product manufacturers owe a duty to warn employers of take-home asbestos exposure dangers and safe laundering instructions, making employee spouses foreseeable plaintiffs who may recover if adequate warnings were not provided.
Manufacturers cannot be held liable to an employee's spouse if they provided sufficient warnings and safe laundering instructions to the employer.
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.