Sanzone v. Allied Signal Inc., et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE F R E D S. S ILVERMAN JU D G E N E W C A S T L E C OUNTY C OURTHO USE 500 N. K I N G S T R E E T , S U I T E 10400 W I L M I N G TO N , D E L A W A R E 19801 (302) 255-0669 November 26, 2003 Robert Jacobs, Esquire Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A. 2 East 7th Street P.O. Box 1271 Wilmington, Delaware, 19899 Richard K. Herrmann, Esquire Blank Rome Comisky & McCauley, LLP 1201 N. Market Street Suite 2100 Wilmington, Delaware, 19801-4226 John L. Reed, Esquire Duane Morris & Heckscher 1100 N. Market Street Suite 1200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Randall E. Robbins, Esquire Ashby & Geddes 222 Delaware Avenue, 17th Floor Wilmington, Delaware, 19801 Kevin J. Connors, Esquire Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin 1220 N. Market Street, Suite 202 P.O. Box 130 Wilmington, Delaware, 19899 John D. Balaguer, Esquire White and Williams 824 Market Street, Suite 902 Wilmington, Delaware, 19801 Donald E. Reid, Esquire Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell 1201 N. Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899 Frederick L. Cottrell, III, Esquire Richards Layton & Finger, P.A. One Rodney Square P.O. Box 551 Wilmington, DE 19899 Re: Lori Ann Sanzone v. Allied Signal Inc., et al., C.A. No. 00C-07-068 Letter/Order November 26, 2003 Page 2 Adam L. Balick, Esquire Sidney Balick & Associates 711 King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Michael P. Kelly, Esquire McCarter & English, LLP Mellon Bank Center P.O. Box 111 Wilmington, DE 19899 Joseph Grey, Esquire Stevens & Lee, P.C. 300 Delaware Avenue Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801 Seth J. Reidenberg, Esquire Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor 1000 West Street, 17th Floor P.O. Box 391 Wilmington, DE 19899 James P. Hall, Esquire Phillips Goldman & Spence 1200 N. Broom Street Wilmington, DE 19806 Jeremy W. Homer, Esquire 116 West Water Street P.O. Box 598 Dover, DE 19904 Re: Lori Ann Sanzone v. Allied Signal Inc., et al., C.A. No. 00C-07-068-FSS Dear Counsel: This letter is prompted by Mr. Jacobs s November 20, 2003 letter and Mr. Reid s November 21, 2003 response. The court stands by its decision to grant Defendants motions for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. I have re-reviewed Brown v. E. I. De DuPont Nemours & Co., Inc.1 and I remain convinced that Brown controls. The court continues to appreciate that when he told Plaintiff that she had cancer, Dr. Sinkovic offered two possible causes. Nonetheless, 1 820 A.2d 36 2 (Del. 2003). Re: Lori Ann Sanzone v. Allied Signal Inc., et al., C.A. No. 00C-07-068 Letter/Order November 26, 2003 Page 3 the undisputed fact that Dr. Sinkovic told Plaintiff that one possible cause of her illness was Defendants product put her on inquiry notice, as a matter of law.2 Plaintiff had two years from the time she was told that Defendant s product might have caused her illness to investigate and bring suit. The court will enter a final judgment order after the claims against the remaining Defendants are resolved. Furthermore, Defendants are correct that the trial in March will not address damages. The court continues to view causation as a make or break issue. While the court is unable to grant summary judgment on causation, after spending so much time with this case the court questions whether Plaintiff can prove that her illness probably was caused by exposure to vinyl chloride monomer. The trial will answer that question. The trial s outcome will either end this litigation or potentially pave the way to a substantial recovery. Concerning separate trials, this case will be bifurcated. The jury will only consider whether Plaintiff s illness probably was caused by exposure to vinyl chloride monomer. The jury will not decide if any Defendant was negligent, nor whether Defendants conspired. The jury also will not reach damages. If the jury finds for Plaintiff on causation, the court will conduct a second trial in front of a second jury on the unresolved issues, including damages. Plaintiff s snippet from Judge Taylor s bench ruling in Lee v. A.C.& S. Co., Inc. is not helpful. Meanwhile, Superior Court Civil Rule 42(b) expressly 3 2 See Id. At 368 (lim itations period begins running when plaintiff on notice that injury may be caused by defen dant). 3 1987 WL 16746 (Del. Su per.). Re: Lori Ann Sanzone v. Allied Signal Inc., et al., C.A. No. 00C-07-068 Letter/Order November 26, 2003 Page 4 contemplates separate trials on separate issues.4 And Judge Taylor approved the idea of separate trials in In Re Asbestos Litigation.5 The court is not acting rashly. As mentioned above, causation is a pivotal issue. Originally, Plaintiff claimed her illness was the signature disease associated with vinyl chloride monomer. Now, she admits that her cancer could be caused by vinyl chloride monomer, or other things, such as birth control pills. While Plaintiff had repeated exposure to some of the other things, she worked with polyvinyl chloride for only a few days. If Plaintiff cannot prove causation, a distinct possibility, forcing Defendants and the court to trial on negligence and damages will be grossly inefficient. Otherwise, the court understands there is pending motion practice related to the upcoming trial, scheduled to be heard on December 5, 2003. That is good. The court intends to clear all obstacles to the bifurcated trial. IT IS SO ORDERED. Very truly yours, FSS/lah oc: Prothonotary (Civil Division) pc: James W. Semple, Esquire Daniel V. Folt, Esquire 4 SUPER CT. CIV . R. 42(b). 5 1987 WL 10277 (Del. Super.); See also 9 C. Wright & Miller Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2391 (1995). ( Is there a violation of the constitutional [right to a jury] provision if issues are submitted independ ently to separate jurie s? The a nswer rath er clearly must b e in the negative. ); Moore s Federal Practice 3D § 42.20[5][a] (court may separate virtually any issue it deems proper on motion of any party or sua spon te).

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.