Cobb v. PACCAR Inc.

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

This text of Cobb v. PACCAR Inc. (Cobb v. PACCAR Inc.) 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. PACCAR Inc., (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 PACCAR INC. et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) )

August 30, 2017

Upon Defendant PACCAR’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Willful and Wanton Conduct Claim GRANTED.

ORDER

Defendant PACCAR Inc. (“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. Plaintiff may move to amend if

Plaintiff discovers evidence that supports a punitive damages claim.

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. PACCAR Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cobb-v-paccar-inc-delsuperct-2017.