IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION

CLARENCE DIONNE, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

ABB, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

) C.A. No. N14C-11-062 ASB

)

)

)

)

)

)

July 12, 2017

Upon Defendant Cleaver-Brooks, Inc.

Motion for Summary Judgment. DENIED.

Defendant Cleaver-Brooks cannot satisfy the summary judgment criteria on 

the issues of causation.1 Plaintiff, Clarence Dionne, alleges that he was exposed to 

Defendant’s asbestos-containing boilers while working at Bay Area Medical 

Center. The contested exposure in this case is limited to the replacement of rope 

gaskets on the doors of Defendant’s boilers and the boiler insulation. Plaintiff 

testified that he scraped off the rope gaskets and supervised this task as well. He 

 

1

Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56; Smith v. Advanced Auto Parts, Inc., 2013 WL 6920864, at *3 (Del. 

Super. Dec. 30, 2013); see Moore v. Sizemore, 405 A.2d 679, 680 (Del. 1979); Nutt v. A.C. & S., 

Inc., 517 A.2d 690, 692 (Del. Super. Ct. 1986); In re Asbestos Litigation (Helm), 2012 WL 

3264925 (Del. Aug. 13, 2012).
believed that the rope gaskets contained asbestos. He testified that he scraped off 

the rope gaskets at least once a year. Plaintiff recalls doing this work himself 

about eight times, and supervising others changing gaskets another eight times. 

When Plaintiff was promoted to department head in 1975, part of his 

responsibilities included ordering replacement parts. He testified that he ordered 

the replacement parts through his secretary. He also testified that the replacement 

rope gaskets and replacement insulation came from Cleaver-Brooks, and he was 

aware of this because he placed the orders through his secretary. Plaintiff also 

removed and replaced white insulation inside the boiler door twice, however he 

was not present for the entire process the second time. Removal and replacement 

of the insulation took approximately seven hours. Additionally, Plaintiff provided 

evidence that Cleaver-Brooks sold boilers that contained asbestos components 

including asbestos gaskets and rope through the late 1970s, and Cleaver-Brooks 

sold replacement asbestos-containing parts. Defendant argues that Plaintiff only 

speculates that the replacement parts contained asbestos, and that Plaintiff was 

unaware of the maintenance history of the two Cleaver-Brooks boilers at issue. 

Wisconsin law is the applicable substantive law in this matter. Under 

Wisconsin law, a plaintiff must prove that the alleged defect in the defendant’s 
product was a cause of the plaintiff’s injury or damage.2

 The test of causation in 

Wisconsin is whether the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in 

contributing to the result.3 A substantial factor is such that “the defendant’s 

conduct has such an effect in producing the harm as to lead the trier of fact, as a 

reasonable person, to regard it as a cause, using the word in the popular sense.”4 

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s exposure to Cleaver-Brooks rope gaskets and 

poured insulation cannot amount to a substantial factor under Wisconsin law. 

Defendant argues that because Plaintiff does not know whether the parts he worked 

with contained asbestos, a reasonable jury would have to speculate that the 

products contained asbestos. 

Viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, Plaintiff has 

presented evidence that a reasonable juror could infer Plaintiff was exposed to 

asbestos from Defendant’s boilers. Plaintiff provided evidence that Cleaver-Brooks 

incorporated asbestos-gaskets and rope in parts of their boilers up though the late 

1970s. Plaintiff also provided evidence that Cleaver-Brooks sold replacement 

asbestos-containing parts such as gaskets, cement, and rope. Further, Plaintiff was 

responsible for ordering the replacement parts for these boilers and he testified that 

he ordered the parts from Cleaver-Brooks. Plaintiff stated that he spent 

 

2 Morden v. Continental AG, 611 N.W.2d 659 (Wis. 2000); Zielinski v. A.P.Green Indus., Inc., 

661 N.W.2d 491 (Ct. App. Wis. 2003).

3 Merco Distrib. Corp. v. Commercial Police Alarm Co., 267 N.W.2d 652, 654 (Wis. 1978).

4

Zielinski, 661 N.W.2d at 496.
approximately twenty minutes changing gaskets, and he changed about eight 

gaskets himself, and supervised eight more gasket changes. Plaintiff also 

demonstrated that it took hours to remove and replace insulation in the boilers. A 

reasonable jury could infer that Defendant’s asbestos products were a substantial 

factor in causing Plaintiff Clarence Dionne’s injuries. Therefore, Defendant 

Cleaver-Brook’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Calvin L. Scott

The Honorable Calvin L. Scott, Jr.