Cobb v. Daimler Trucks North America, LLC

CourtSuperior Court of Delaware
DecidedAugust 30, 2017
DocketN17C-05-126 ASB
StatusPublished

This text of Cobb v. Daimler Trucks North America, LLC (Cobb v. Daimler Trucks North America, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cobb v. Daimler Trucks North America, LLC, (Del. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

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).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Doe v. Cahill
884 A.2d 451 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Cobb v. Daimler Trucks North America, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cobb-v-daimler-trucks-north-america-llc-delsuperct-2017.