The Superior Court has rejected an attempt by a union carpenter to hold three companies liable for asbestos-related injuries he allegedly sustained while working for an independent contractor at the firms' Delaware facilities.

In a 29-page opinion, Judge Vivian L. Medinilla on April 18 said that Delmarva Power & Light Co., Getty and Sunoco did not owe plaintiff Werner Rath a duty of care stemming from his alleged exposure to the harmful substance while working alongside other tradesmen during his 27-year career with contractor Catalytic Inc., which was hired to perform work at the companies' facilities in Delaware City and Claymont.

The ruling cited a line of Delaware Supreme Court cases holding that landowners are generally not liable to employees of individual contractors, except under a limited set of circumstances.

According to Medinilla's opinion, Rath claimed to belong to a specific subset of asbestos plaintiffs that did not work directly with the substance and thus was required to show he was injured as a result of other workers on the defendants' property.

Rath alleged in court papers that he was required to “stand by” after constructing scaffolding at the sites, while pipefitters, boilermakers and other tradesman worked on piping and insulation that were negligently maintained by the defendants.

But Medinilla said Rath's argument improperly tried to include DP&L, Getty and Sunoco among the groups that could be held responsible for workers' asbestos injuries. Under Delaware law, she said, landowners can only be held accountable in such cases if they actively controlled the manner or method of a plaintiff's work, voluntarily assumed safety responsibility at the site, or took “possessory” control of the work area.

In her ruling, Medinilla said that none of the three firms ever exercised control over the work sites, finding that only Rath's employer, Catalytic, did. According to the opinion, Rath never sought worker compensation benefits from Catalytic and instead tried to impose liability on the landowners based on the acts of Catalytic's employees.

“This is problematic,” Medinilla wrote.

“The record is clear that Catalytic was the only contractor at the various facilities and was the sole employer of all the employees of the different trades that were working there, including the insulators, pipefitters and laborers that worked alongside Rath,” she said.

An attorney for Rath was not immediately available to comment.

Counsel for Sunoco and DP&L did not return calls Monday seeking comment on the ruling, and an attorney for Getty declined to comment.

Rath was represented by Donald P. Blydenburgh and Patrick I. Andrews of Levy Konigsberg in New York and Thomas C. Crumplar of of Jacobs & Crumplar in Wilmington.

DP&L was represented by Robert S. Goldman and Lisa M. McLaughlin of Phillips, Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall in Wilmington.

Getty was represented by James F. Harker of Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman in Wilmington.

Sunoco was represented by Francis Gondek and Nicholas E. Skiles of Swartz Campbell in Wilmington.

The case is captioned Rath v. 3M.