Cobb v. PACCAR Inc. ( 2017 )

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).