Delaware’s Exclusive Remedy Rule

State Snapshot

BASIC RULE

In Delaware, workers’ compensation is an employee’s sole legal remedy for a work-related injury. 19 Del. C. § 2304. This means that an injured employee cannot sue his employer in tort (which expose the employer to liability for monetary damages awards, and pain and suffering). The rule also applies to family members of the injured employee; the rule bars them from filing loss of consortium or derivative tort suits, such as a wrongful death claim,  against the employer. 

TORT LAWSUITS AGAINST CO-EMPLOYEES

The rule protects not only the employer from personal injury lawsuits, but also co-workers. Thus, an injured employee generally cannot sue a co-employee for negligence.

TYPES OF CLAIMS BARRED

The rule typically bars the following types of claims:

• Negligence
• Premises liability
• Unsafe workplace claims
• Failure to supervise
• Failure to provide safety equipment
• Wrongful death actions based on workplace negligence

INTENTIONAL INJURIES

If the employer deliberately intended to injure the employee, it may step outside of the protection of the exclusivity rule. But Delaware courts interpret this exception to the rule strictly. Further, the exception does not apply if the employer merely engages in negligence, gross negligence, or wilful disregard of safety standards.

UM/UIM/PIP Benefits

Under 19 Del. C. § 2304, the exclusive remedy provision expressly does not bar claims for:

• Uninsured Motorist (UM) benefits
• Underinsured Motorist (UIM) benefits
• Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits

This primarily applies, of course, to employees who drive in the course and scope of their employment. The above claims may proceed even if the employee also receives workers' compensation benefits. 

THIRD-PARTY CONTRIBUTION CLAIMS

A negligent third party sued in tort by an injured employee cannot seek contribution or fault-sharing from the employer. This is true even if the employer's negligence primarily caused the accident. 

EXPRESS CONTRACTUAL INDEMNIFICATION

A third party can only recover indemnity from an employer if there is an express, unambiguous written contract in which the employer agreed to indemnify the third party. However, courts strictly construe these provisions, and exclusivity will still bar indemnity if the third party's own sole negligence caused the injury or if the terms do not specifically address the statutory bar.

THIRD PARTY LAWSUITS

The exclusive remedy rule does not apply to lawsuits against third parties, such as:

• Product manufacturers
• Negligent drivers
• Outside contractors
• Property owners (if not protected by employer immunity)

For example, if the employee is struck by a car driven by a member of the public while the employee is on the clock, the rule does not bar the lawsuit against the driver. To take another example, if an employee is injured during work by defective equipment that is manufactured by another company, the employee may still sue that other company.

RECENT CASES

Coulter v. Steen, C.A. No. N20C-12-207 SPL (Del. Super. Ct. 08/29/25)

Bryan Dukes was employed by Nagel Farm Service. He arrived at the Steens' farm to deliver a load of crushed limestone and was electrocuted when his raised dump trailer made contact with a power line. His family sued the Steens, the landowners, for negligence and wrongful death. The Steens, in turn,  brought a third-party indemnification claim against Nagel, seeking contribution. The court pointed out that Nagel Farm paid workers' compensation benefits following the death. Under 19 Del. C. § 2304, workers' compensation exclusivity bars tort liability contribution claims against an employer. To overcome workers' compensation immunity via an implied obligation to indemnify, there must be an underlying express or implied contractual relationship between the third party and the employer. Here, the Steens hired an intermediary broker when they sought to have limestone delivered. They didn’t have any direct contract or prior dealings with Nagel. Thus, no implied duty to indemnify existed. The court granted summary judgment to the employer on the Steens’ indemnification claim.

McGuckin v. PBF Energy, Inc., C.A. No. N25C-01-392 CLS (Del. Super. Ct. 08/05/25)

James McGuckin, an MPW Industrial Water Services employee, was severely injured when a circuit breaker exploded while he was manually resetting a Reverse Osmosis machine at an oil refinery. McGuckin and his wife brought claims against MPW for negligence and recklessness. They also asserted intentional torts. MPW asked the court to throw out the case, arguing that all claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provision. The court held that all negligence and recklessness claims were precluded by the exclusivity rule. However, it denied the request to dismiss as to the intentional tort claims,reasoning that the plaintiffs pointed to specific facts demonstrating the employer acted with deliberate intent. Those allegations were that MPW knew the equipment was defective and overheating, repeatedly bypassed safety thresholds, and intentionally ordered McGuckin into a dangerous situation while concealing the risks. Because the intentional tort exception to exclusivity applied, the court permitted those claims to move forward.

EXCLUSIVITY RULE IN NEARBY STATES

Maryland

New Jersey

Pennsylvania

Share This Article: