IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION
NAGEL T. COBB, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
) C.A. No. N17C-05-126 ASB
DAIMLER TRUCKS NORTH )
AMERICA, LLC et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
)
August 30, 2017
Upon Defendant Daimler’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Willful and Wanton Conduct Claim
GRANTED.
ORDER
Defendant Daimler Trucks North America, LLC (“Defendant”) filed a Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Willful and Wanton Conduct Claims pursuant to Superior
Court Civil Rules 8(a), 9(b) and 12(b)(6). Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s willful
and wanton conduct claim lacks specific supporting factual allegations, and this
Court has held that simply “adding the words willful and wanton to an allegation
does not transform automatically a case to a punitive damages claim.” 1 On the other
hand, Plaintiff contends that under Delaware law, “for a complaint to survive a
motion to dismiss it need only general notice of the claim asserted.” 2 The Court
agrees with Defendant. As this Court noted in In re Asbestos Litigation (Ardis)3,
without a factual basis or the elements of the claim under the substantive state law
the claim is brought under, the claim is insufficient. Plaintiff did not plead specific
facts to support a punitive damages claim against Defendant. Plaintiff’s willful and
wanton conduct claim against Defendant is dismissed without prejudice. Shall
Plaintiff discover evidence that supports a punitive damages claim; Plaintiff may
move to amend.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Calvin L. Scott
The Honorable Calvin L. Scott, Jr.
1
Defendant cites to In re Asbestos Litig. (Aungst), C.A. N12c-08-017 ASB
(Del.Super. Dec. 17, 2012). Defendant also cites to numerous Asbestos Litigation
cases where this Court has dismissed “cookie cutter” punitive damage claims.
2
Plaintiff cites Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451, 458 (Del. 2005).
3
In re Asbestos Litigation (Ardis), C.A. No. N13C-10-020 (ASB)(Del. Super. Feb.
6, 2014).