Asbestos Workers Local No. 42 Welfare Fund v. Brewster and Snyderman
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE WILLIAM B. CHANDLER III CHANCELLOR P.O. BOX 581 GEORGETOWN, DE 19947 TELEPHONE (302) 856-5424 FACSIMILE (302) 856-5251 Date Submitted: June 7, 2004 Date Decided: June 17, 2004 Christopher D. Loizides Loizides & Associates 1225 King Street, Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801 Charles Snyderman Charles Snyderman, P.A. Stoney Batter Office Building 5301 Limestone Rd., Suite 214 Wilmington, DE 19808 Re: Asbestos Workers Local No. 42 Welfare Fund v. Brewster and Snyderman Civil Action No. 19476-NC Dear Counsel: On March 11, 2004, I wrote to counsel and established a dispositive motion and briefing schedule. Any dispositive motion, together with an opening brief, was to be filed on or before May 15. The answering brief was due two weeks after the opening brief and the reply brief was due one week after the answering brief. Defendants complied with my March 11 Order and filed their motion for summary judgment with supporting brief on May 15. Plaintiff did not comply with my Order, but did file a motion for summary judgment with supporting brief on May 17. Neither party has complied with the direction in my Order to file an answering brief and a reply brief. Notwithstanding this violation of the Court s direct Order, I will proceed to address the pending motions based on the briefing that has been provided to me. This is an action brought by plaintiff Asbestos Workers Local No. 42 Welfare Fund, seeking reimbursement from the defendants for all sums that the Fund expended on behalf of defendant Mrs. Brewster for medical care. Specifically, the Fund seeks reimbursement for $42,000 in health insurance benefits that it paid out on behalf of defendant Mrs. Brewster for medical care and treatment. Although the complaint states that this is an action for declaratory judgment, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, it is clear that the Fund seeks to enforce its contractual subrogation claim. It is for the breach of that subrogation agreement that the Fund seeks reimbursement in the amount of $42,000. In short, it is evident that the claim in this matter is a garden-variety breach of contract claim for which money damages is the sole form of relief to be awarded. Accordingly, where a full and complete remedy exists at law, this Court has no subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, I dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction. Within fifteen days from the date of this Order, plaintiff may elect to transfer this case to the Superior Court pursuant to 10 Del. C. ยง 1902. In the event no election is filed to transfer, this matter will be dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Very truly yours, /S/ William B. Chandler III William B. Chandler III WBCIII:meg 2
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.
