Summary
The Delaware Supreme Court reversed summary judgment dismissing Paul and Marlene DaBaldo’s asbestos-related personal injury claims as barred by the statute of limitations. The Court applied Delaware’s multi-disease approach, holding that asbestos-related pleural disease and pulmonary asbestosis are separate diseases with separate limitations periods. It concluded that the asbestosis claim accrued when DaBaldo was diagnosed in 2007, making his 2009 complaint timely, and remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Delaware's multi-disease approach treats pulmonary asbestosis as a separate asbestos-related disease and claim from asbestos-related pleural disease for statute-of-limitations purposes.
- Whether the evidence established as a matter of law that Dabaldo was on inquiry notice of pulmonary asbestosis before his 2007 diagnosis.
- Whether the Superior Court properly granted defendants summary judgment under Delaware's two-year statute of limitations.
Holdings
- Under Delaware's multi-disease approach, each distinct disease attributable to asbestos exposure is a separate claim subject to its own statute of limitations. Dabaldo's claim for pulmonary asbestosis was separate from his claim for asbestos-related pleural disease.
- The statute of limitations on Dabaldo's pulmonary-asbestosis claim began to run in July 2007, when he first learned that he had asbestosis through Dr. Eliasson's diagnosis.
- Summary judgment was improper because the record did not establish that Dabaldo's asbestosis claim was time-barred, and the evidence supported filing within two years after his 2007 diagnosis.
Key quotations
“Delaware is a multi-disease jurisdiction, which means that each distinct diagnosis attributable to asbestos exposure is a separate claim and thus is subject to its own statute of limitations.” (85 A.3d at 77)
“Importantly, mere exposure to asbestos combined with symptoms that resemble an asbestos-related disease, without a definitive medical diagnosis, is not enough to charge the plaintiff with knowledge.” (85 A.3d at 79)
“A statement that findings are compatible with asbestosis is not equivalent to a medical diagnosis of asbestosis.” (85 A.3d at 80)
Factual background
Paul Dabaldo worked at the Getty Tidewater Oil Refinery in Delaware from 1967 to 2001 and was exposed to asbestos. Medical evaluations in 1992 and subsequent imaging through 2005 documented asbestos-related pleural disease or pleural plaques, but the record did not show that Dabaldo received the radiology reports or was diagnosed with pulmonary asbestosis. In 2007, Dr. Orn Eliasson diagnosed him with asbestosis, and Dabaldo filed suit on May 5, 2009.
Procedural history
DaBaldo filed a personal injury complaint in the Superior Court on May 5, 2009, alleging that asbestos exposure caused his pulmonary asbestosis. After discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment under title 10, section 8119 of the Delaware Code. The Superior Court granted the motions from the bench on April 9, 2012, denied reargument, and entered a final order on April 22, 2013. The Delaware Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
The matter was remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion.