232 So.3d 294
Fla.2017Background
- This is an Engle-progeny wrongful-death/products-liability case: James Schoeff died of smoking-related lung cancer; plaintiff (wife) sued R.J. Reynolds (RJR) invoking Engle findings (defect, negligence, concealment, conspiracy).
- At trial the jury found: Schoeff was nicotine-addicted and that addiction, RJR’s negligence, defective cigarettes, and fraudulent concealment caused his death; it allocated 25% comparative fault to Schoeff, awarded $10.5M compensatory and $30M punitive damages.
- The trial court reduced compensatory damages by the 25% smoker fault (per comparative-fault practice), denied remittitur of punitive damages, and entered judgment for $7.875M compensatory (post-reduction) plus $30M punitive.
- The Fourth DCA reversed in part: it upheld reduction of compensatory damages, found punitive damages excessive or subject to remittitur (because plaintiff’s counsel asked jury not to exceed $25M yet jury awarded $30M), and remanded for remittitur/new trial on punitive damages.
- The Florida Supreme Court accepted conflict review (contrast with First DCA in Sury) and addressed: (1) whether the comparative-fault statute applies to Engle progeny when intentional-tort findings exist; (2) whether plaintiff waived the intentional-tort exception by trial conduct; (3) constitutionality of the $30M punitive award; and (4) remittitur based on counsel’s requested limit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §768.81 (comparative fault) apply to Engle-progeny cases where the jury finds for plaintiff on intentional-tort claims? | Schoeff: intentional-tort exception bars reduction — statute excludes "action based upon an intentional tort." | RJR: statute applies to whole "action" where substance is negligence/products liability; reduction appropriate. | Held: Comparative-fault statute does not apply to Engle progeny cases when jury finds for plaintiff on intentional-tort claims; compensatory damages may not be reduced. |
| Did Schoeff waive the intentional-tort exception by arguing comparative fault at trial? | Schoeff: she preserved exception in pleadings and did not affirmatively waive; verdict form/trial context supported preservation. | RJR: plaintiff’s trial conduct (arguing apportionment to jury) misled jury and waived exception. | Held: Trial court abused discretion in finding waiver; Schoeff did not waive the intentional-tort exception. |
| Was the $30M punitive award unconstitutionally excessive under federal due process? | Schoeff: punitive award justified given extreme reprehensibility; ratio (~3:1) to compensatory within constitutional bounds. | RJR: cumulative exposure and past Engle class award render $30M excessive; consider total potential liability. | Held: Punitive award not unconstitutionally excessive; jury’s award upheld under guideposts (reprehensibility, ratio, comparable penalties). |
| Was remittitur required because plaintiff’s counsel asked jury not to exceed $25M? | Schoeff: soliciting a max does not bind the jury; exceeding requested amount is not per se fatal. | RJR: jury’s exceeding of counsel’s stated limit shows award cannot be adduced logically; remittitur required under §768.74(5)(e). | Held: Exceeding counsel’s request alone insufficient to require remittitur; trial court did not abuse discretion in denying remittitur. |
Key Cases Cited
- Engle v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (class findings binding in progeny cases; decertification rationale).
- Merrill Crossings Associates v. McDonald, 705 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 1997) (comparison of substance of action; court analyzed intentional-tort context).
- Mazzilli v. Doud, 485 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (refused to reduce award by plaintiff’s fault where jury found intentional tort).
- D’Amario v. Ford Motor Co., 806 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 2001) (addressed comparative fault/products-liability interplay; later legislative amendment responded to D’Amario).
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2003) (three guideposts for punitive-damages due-process review).
- BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (U.S. 1996) (reprehensibility and reasonableness benchmarks for punitive damages).