Lucille Ruth Soffer, etc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
187 So. 3d 1219
| Fla. | 2016Background
- This case concerns whether individual members of the Engle smoking-related class action may seek punitive damages on negligence and strict‑liability claims in their individual (progeny) suits after this Court decertified the class in Engle.
- In Engle, Phase I common‑issue findings were preserved for res judicata effect for progeny plaintiffs, but the jury’s punitive‑damages findings were vacated and the class was decertified; class counsel had sought punitive damages only on intentional tort counts and a late motion to amend was denied as untimely.
- Lucille Soffer (personal representative) filed an individual wrongful‑death suit asserting the same substantive claims as Engle (negligence, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, conspiracy) and moved to amend to seek punitive damages on all counts; the trial court granted the amendment but later instructed the jury punitive damages could only be considered on the intentional‑tort counts.
- The jury found liability on negligence and strict liability but rejected fraudulent‑concealment/conspiracy; punitive damages were therefore not considered and Soffer appealed.
- The First DCA (Soffer) held progeny plaintiffs were bound by Engle’s procedural posture and could not seek punitive damages on negligence/strict‑liability counts; the Second DCA (Hallgren) reached the opposite conclusion. This Court granted review to resolve the conflict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May Engle progeny seek punitive damages on negligence and strict‑liability claims? | Soffer: Progeny may amend timely individual complaints to seek punitive damages on all properly pled counts because punitive damages are an auxiliary remedy and Engle vacated punitive findings. | R.J. Reynolds: Progeny are bound by the Engle procedural posture; class’s failure to timely amend and to cross‑appeal bars punitive damages on those counts. | Yes. Progeny may seek punitive damages on all properly pled counts; Engle’s vacating of punitive findings wiped the slate clean. |
| Does res judicata from Engle bar punitive damages beyond the intentional‑tort counts? | Soffer: No; Engle preserved only specific Phase I liability findings for res judicata and expressly vacated punitive findings. | Reynolds: Res judicata and the benefits progeny accept from Engle (tolling, Phase I findings) should limit remedies to those pursued in Engle. | No. Res judicata does not extend to punitive damages here; Engle’s decertification and vacatur of punitive findings permit progeny to pursue punitive damages anew. |
| Was failure to cross‑appeal in Engle a waiver preventing later pursuit of punitive damages? | Soffer: Not applicable; issue was vacated and progeny start anew; Reynolds waived this argument by not raising it below. | Reynolds: Airvac requires cross‑appeal; otherwise amendment rights are lost on remand. | Rejected. The Court distinguishes Airvac and recedes from its law‑of‑the‑case application; Ed Ricke principles apply — vacatur leaves parties as if no punitive determination occurred. |
| Is punitive damages subject to a separate statute of limitations or equitable‑tolling bar? | Soffer: No; punitive damages are a remedy auxiliary to an underlying timely cause of action and governed by §768.72 and relation‑back/amendment rules. | Reynolds: Equitable tolling does not revive untimely punitive‑damage claims that were not pursued by the class. | No. Punitive damages are not a separate cause of action and are not governed by a separate limitations period; a timely underlying claim allows amendment under §768.72 and rules of civil procedure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (decertified class; preserved specified Phase I findings for progeny; vacated punitive‑damages findings)
- Liggett Group, Inc. v. Engle, 853 So.2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (Engle II; procedural history of class trial phases)
- Soffer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 106 So.3d 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (First DCA holding progeny bound by Engle procedural posture; certified question)
- Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Hallgren, 124 So.3d 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (Second DCA permitting progeny to seek punitive damages on negligence/strict‑liability claims; conflict certified)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Ciccone, 123 So.3d 604 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (adopted Soffer reasoning below; disapproved by this Court on punitive issue)
- Airvac, Inc. v. Ranger Ins. Co., 330 So.2d 467 (Fla. 1976) (discussed waiver/cross‑appeal; Court distinguishes and recedes as to law‑of‑the‑case application)
- Ed Ricke & Sons, Inc. v. Green, 609 So.2d 504 (Fla. 1992) (vacatur/new trial principles cited as controlling over Airvac)