Frazier v. Philip Morris USA Inc.
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5476
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Ms. Frazier sues tobacco companies under Engle-based progeny claims seeking COPD/emphysema relief.
- Jury found nicotine addiction caused COPD/emphysema; limitations verdict said before May 5, 1990 she knew of injury and causal link.
- Court addressed four-year limitations and twelve-year fraud repose issues; Engle Phase I findings were sought for preclusion.
- Dr. Schroeder testified about COPD dating to 1987–1991; trial court had precluded some testimony but allowed others.
- Trial court instructed limitations focusing on injury rather than manifestations; verdict form asked about knowledge of injury and causation.
- Court reverses on limitations accrual, requires directed verdict for Ms. Frazier; affirms cross-appeal on Engel preclusion and the fraud-repose issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accrual date for creeping disease | Frazier argues no competent evidence before May 5, 1990. | Defendants rely on manifestations evidence prior to May 5, 1990. | No pre-May 1990 evidence; directed verdict for Frazier. |
| Admissibility of Dr. Schroeder testimony | testimony about pre-1991 COPD would be relevant. | Schroeder's opinions based on later records are admissible expert inference. | Trial court correct to bar speculative pre-1991 testimony. |
| Form of jury instruction and verdict on limitations | Limitations should focus on manifestations and awareness of COPD/emphysema-caused-by-smoking. | Use injury-centric instruction consistent with Barbanell/Carter. | Instruction/verdict form improperly framed around 'injury'; must focus on manifestations. |
| Engle preclusion and fraud statute of repose cross-appeal | Phase I Engle findings should preclude and repose should not bar timely fraud claims. | Engle preclusion applies; repose may bar fraud claims. | Affirmed preclusion of Engle findings; affirmed as to fraud-repose cross-appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (creeping-disease accrual; preclusion and class issues)
- Carter v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 778 So.2d 932 (Fla. 2000) (creeping-disease accrual test)
- American Optical Corp. v. Williams, 73 So.3d 120 (Fla. 2011) (creeping-disease accrual reaffirmation)
- Marsh v. Valyou, 977 So.2d 543 (Fla. 2007) (expert testimony boundaries under Evidence Code)
- Celotex Corp. v. Copeland, 471 So.2d 533 (Fla. 1985) (creeping-disease accrual framework)
- Owens-Corning v. Corcoran, 679 So.2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (unconstitutionality of certain repose provisions for long-delayed symptoms)
- Rey v. Philip Morris, Inc., 75 So.3d 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (evidence of post-May 5, 1982 deceptive statements in concealment claims)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin, 53 So.3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (Engle-related preclusion context)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Brown, 70 So.3d 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (Engle findings and limitations guidance)
- Brackett v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., 81 So.3d 636 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (Engle-related plea; limitations/knowledge discussion)