Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Alexander
123 So. 3d 67
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Coleman Alexander, a long-time smoker who died of smoking-related lung cancer, was an Engle-class member; his wife Dorothy Alexander sued Lorillard for negligence, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, and conspiracy, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
- At trial Mrs. Alexander testified about Coleman’s long smoking history, his reliance on filtered Kent cigarettes as ‘‘safe,’’ and her caregiving during his painful decline; addiction evidence showed Coleman could not quit by 1985.
- Jury found for Mrs. Alexander on all counts, apportioned 20% fault to Coleman, and awarded $20 million compensatory and $25 million punitive damages; trial court remitted compensatory damages to $10 million (post-apportionment $8 million) and left punitive damages at $25 million.
- Lorillard appealed, raising multiple grounds: juror nondisclosure (Melinda Graham), post-trial juror interview denial, judge’s brief absence during deliberations, admissibility of Coleman’s statements (state-of-mind hearsay exception), and excessiveness/unconstitutionality of damages.
- The appellate court reviewed preserved issues for abuse of discretion (punitive-amount constitutional challenge reviewed de novo) and affirmed the judgment and the remitted compensatory and punitive awards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror nondisclosure (Melinda Graham) | Graham’s acquaintance with plaintiff’s daughter was casual/distant and did not prejudice trial. | Graham failed to disclose during voir dire; her removal required. | Denied removal: no concealment shown; trial court credibility finding upheld. |
| Post-trial juror interview | No need; issue was raised during trial and further research should have been done earlier. | New, post-verdict research warranted juror interview. | Denied: juror interviews disfavored; defendant failed due diligence and waived. |
| Judge’s brief absence during deliberations | No harm; judge was available for communications and returned before verdict received in open court. | Absence during 7-minute interval could have affected verdict. | No new trial: temporary absence did not violate requirement that judge be available for communications. |
| Admission of Coleman’s statements (state-of-mind hearsay) | Statements showed Coleman’s then-existing beliefs and explained subsequent conduct/reliance on tobacco representations. | Statements were inadmissible hearsay about past reasons for smoking. | Admissible under §90.803(3): probative of reliance and causation; admission not abused. |
| Compensatory damages remittitur/new trial | $10M remittitur supported; jury award excessive but remittitur proper remedy. | Wanted new trial on damages rather than accepting remittitur. | Remittitur to $10M affirmed; defendant estopped from seeking new trial after accepting remittitur and failing to timely object. |
| Punitive damages excess/constitutional challenge | Award based on Lorillard’s own conduct/conspiracy; ratio to compensatory is within Florida statutory guidance and federal due-process limits. | Award tainted by other companies’ conduct, excessive, fueled by passion. | $25M punitive damages upheld: based on Lorillard’s conduct, not unconstitutionally excessive, ratio acceptable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (establishes Engle findings with preclusive effect in individual progeny cases)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin, 53 So.3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (punitive-damages constitutional review and ratio guidance)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Townsend, 90 So.3d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (affirming compensatory award in a smoker’s-widow case; comparable fact pattern)
- BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996) (factors for assessing reprehensibility and excessiveness of punitive damages)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) (federal due-process limits on punitive-to-compensatory ratios)
- Glabman v. De La Cruz, 954 So.2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (trial court’s remittitur authority and deference to its exercise)
- Aills v. Boemi, 41 So.3d 1022 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (standard for disturbing large verdicts)