Opinion
C.A. No. 08C-10-192 ASB.
January 14, 2011.
UPON DEFENDANT CENTRAL GULF LINES, INC.'S AMENDED MOTION TO ESTABLISH SUBSTANTIVE LAW, DENIED.
This 14th day of January, 2011, it appears to the Court that:
For the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs' opposition, the Court finds no basis to apply Delaware substantive law to this action. When the courts or General Assembly of Delaware adopt a position on a legal issue subject to a split of authority, it does not automatically mandate that differing approaches taken by other jurisdictions be deemed against Delaware's public policy. As Plaintiffs concede, Delaware does not recognize a duty of care requiring employer/premises owners to act for the aid or protection of members of their employees' households with regard to asbestos exposure. Nevertheless, Delaware's public policy is not violated, nor even particularly implicated, when this Court applies the law of another state imposing such a duty to claims arising from acts or omissions which occurred in that other jurisdiction. A company's incorporation in Delaware, without more, cannot support a legitimate expectation that Delaware law invariably applies to all claims brought against it, particularly when the company conducts extensive activities outside of this state.
See Riedel v. ICI Americas, Inc., 968 A.2d 17 (Del. 2009).
Accordingly, Central Gulf Lines, Inc.'s Amended Motion to Establish Applicable Law is hereby DENIED. Louisiana substantive law will apply to Plaintiffs' claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.