A Delaware court has dismissed negligence claims against the Dunning Defendants in a case involving mold exposure at a rental property. The ruling affects the plaintiffs, Marte King and her minor daughter, who alleged injuries due to mold while living in the property. The court's decision highlights the complexities of landlord-tenant relationships and the responsibilities of property owners.

The case, King v. Pabian Ventures, LLC, was filed under docket number N26C-08-289 FJJ. It involves two sets of defendants: the Dunning Defendants, who previously owned the property, and the Pabian Defendants, who currently manage it. The court's ruling is significant as it clarifies the legal responsibilities of landlords regarding tenant safety and property conditions.

The plaintiffs, Marte King and her daughter K.K., occupied a rental unit in Wilmington, Delaware, from 2023 until April 2024. They allege that they were exposed to mold in the property, which caused personal injuries. The plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Dunning Defendants and the Pabian Defendants, claiming negligence, fraudulent concealment, and other violations related to their tenancy.

The Dunning Defendants, which include Dunning Properties, LLC, and its owners, Michael and Maureen Dunning, sold the property to the Pabian Defendants in April 2022, before the plaintiffs moved in. The plaintiffs claim that the Dunning Defendants failed to address mold issues reported by a previous tenant, Isaiah Baggs, who vacated the property in May 2024 after receiving compensation for his mold complaints.

The plaintiffs initially filed suit in the Court of Chancery in November 2025, seeking equitable relief and alleging fraudulent concealment. However, the court dismissed the claims against the Dunning Defendants, citing the statute of limitations and the lack of a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. The court allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint against the Pabian Defendants, leading to the current ruling.

In the ruling, the court determined that the Dunning Defendants could not be held liable for negligence or premises liability because they no longer owned the property during the plaintiffs' occupancy. The court stated, "The Dunning Defendants did not own the property during the Plaintiffs’ occupancy of the premises nor during any relevant time they were contemplating living at the property." The court granted summary judgment in favor of the Dunning Defendants on all claims against them.

The Pabian Defendants, which include Pabian Ventures, LLC, Pabian Property Management, LLC, and Edward Pabian, also filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims. The court found that the claims against Edward Pabian and Pabian Property Management were dismissed due to a lack of interaction with the plaintiffs. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss for the remaining Pabian Defendants, as the factual record was not complete enough to make a determination on certain claims.

The court ruled that the plaintiffs could not invoke the inherently unknowable injury doctrine or the fraudulent concealment doctrine to extend the statute of limitations for their personal injury claims against the Pabian Defendants. The judge noted that the plaintiffs had observed signs of mold and moisture during their tenancy, which should have prompted them to investigate further. The court stated, "The inherently unknowable tolling doctrine is not applicable when facts exist sufficient to put a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence on inquiry which, if pursued, would lead to the discovery of such facts."

Despite the dismissal of some claims, the ruling allows for the possibility of further legal action against the Pabian Defendants. The court indicated that the plaintiffs could still pursue their claims regarding the assignment of the lease from the previous tenant, Isaiah Baggs, to themselves. The court denied the motion to dismiss on this issue without prejudice, meaning the Pabian Defendants can raise it again later.

This ruling has significant implications for tenants and landlords in Delaware. It emphasizes the importance of landlords addressing property conditions and the potential legal consequences of failing to do so. The case also highlights the need for tenants to be aware of their rights and the responsibilities of their landlords.

Moving forward, the plaintiffs have the option to appeal the dismissal of their claims against the Dunning Defendants. Additionally, the related case in the Court of Chancery remains pending, where the plaintiffs continue to seek relief regarding their mold exposure claims against the Pabian Defendants. The outcome of that case could further impact the plaintiffs' legal strategy and potential recovery.