767 F. Supp. 2d 324
D. Conn.2010Background
- Izzarelli smoked Salem King cigarettes for over 25 years and developed larynx cancer (1997).
- Plaintiff sued RJ Reynolds in 1999 under product liability theories (strict liability, negligent design).
- A 2010 jury found RJ Reynolds liable and awarded $325,000 economic, $13.6 million non-economic damages; 42% apportionment to Izzarelli reduced compensatory to $7,982,250.
- Jury also found by preponderance that punitive damages should be awarded under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-240b.
- Court determined punitive damages amount under PLA framework, with the award capped at twice the plaintiff’s damages, and proceeded to set the final punitive amount.
- Court concluded the PLA did not abrogate the common-law measure of punitive damages, and awarded Izzarelli $3,970,289.87 in punitive damages plus costs, for a total judgment of $11,952,539.87.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §52-240b abrogates the common-law punitive damages measure | Izzarelli argues PLA displaced common law. | Reynolds argues PLA preserves a different measure. | PLA does not abrogate; common-law measure applies. |
| How punitive damages should be measured under the PLA | Izzarelli favors a multiple-factor or near-2x-damages approach. | Reynolds urges nominal or limited award. | Measure is the cost of litigation (common-law rule) with a 2x cap. |
| Constitutional and jury-trial implications of 52-240b | Jury should determine punitive amount. | Court should set the amount; jury determines entitlement only. | Court may set the amount; no constitutional violation. |
| Legislative history supports the measurement approach | No abrogation implied by history. | History supports statutory framework limiting damages. | Legislative history supports retention of common-law measure. |
| Due-process and proportionality under the award | Full recovery via cost of litigation is appropriate. | A high punitive award risks due-process concerns. | 2x damages cap and cost-of-litigation measure satisfy due process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Waterbury Petroleum Products, Inc. v. Canaan Oil and Fuel Co., Inc., 193 Conn. 208 (Connecticut Supreme Court, 1984) (punitive damages tied to litigation costs; deterrence and compensation)
- Berry v. Loiseau, 223 Conn. 786 (Conn. 1992) (upholds court-calculated punitive damages; cost-based measure supported)
- Vandersluis v. Wells, 176 Conn. 353 (Conn. 1978) (standard: punitive damages for reckless indifference)
- Lynn v. Haybuster Mfg., Inc., 226 Conn. 282 (Conn. 1993) (strict construction of statute abrogation; interpret statutes carefully)
- Chykirda v. Yanush, 131 Conn. 565 (Conn. 1945) (no right to jury determine punitive award; evidence required for damages)
- Harty v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Company, 275 Conn. 72 (Conn. 2005) (common-law punitive damages require reckless indifference)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2003) (guide to ratio and due process in punitive damages)
- Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 472 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2008) (ratio and due process considerations for punitive damages)