PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. and R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY v. BRYAN RINTOUL, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Edward Caprio
20-1963
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | May 11, 2022Background
- This is an Engle-progeny wrongful-death case: decedent Edward Caprio, a long-time smoker, manifested COPD in 1996, later developed lung cancer, and died in 2018.
- Caprio married longtime partner Bryan Rintoul in 2015 (after Florida recognized same-sex marriage); Rintoul substituted in as personal representative and sought wrongful-death damages, including non-economic loss as a surviving spouse.
- At trial the jury found Caprio addicted to cigarettes and awarded compensatory damages (including $9 million to Rintoul for loss of consortium) and large punitive awards (approximately $74.1 million to each defendant).
- The trial allowed extensive evidence and argument about JUUL/e‑cigarettes and Altria’s investment in JUUL; plaintiffs used that material to argue reprehensibility for punitive damages.
- On appeal the court addressed (1) application of the amended punitive‑damages statute as interpreted in Sheffield, (2) admissibility and prejudicial effect of JUUL evidence, and (3) whether Rintoul (married after injury manifestation) may recover spouse non‑economic damages under Kelly/Tremblay and Obergefell.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of 1999 amendments to §768.73 (punitive damages cap/credit) | Rintoul argued trial punitive award valid as entered | PM/RJR argued amended §768.73 applies and prior punitive awards must be credited; Sheffield supports application | Court applied Sheffield and reversed punitive awards; remanded to apply amended §768.73 |
| Admissibility of JUUL/Altria evidence for punitive damages | Rintoul: JUUL evidence shows continuation/perpetuation of nicotine‑addiction marketing and supports reprehensibility | PM/RJR: JUUL/Altria conduct is distinct, nonparty conduct or minority‑investment activity; prejudicial and irrelevant to harm to Caprio | Admission was error: piercing corporate separateness not supported and JUUL conduct was dissimilar to harm; error was not harmless—new trial required on all issues |
| Surviving‑spouse non‑economic damages (marriage‑before‑injury rule) | Rintoul: Obergefell and due‑process/equal‑protection require retroactive recognition so he could be treated as married before 1996 manifestation | RJR: Kelly/Tremblay bar recovery because couple were not married when injury manifested; marriage‑into‑cause rule applies | Court rejected retroactive backdating; under Tremblay/Fullerton/Kelly Rintoul cannot recover loss of consortium or pain & suffering as a surviving spouse and consortium award reversed |
| Closing argument improprieties | Rintoul defended rhetoric as trial theme | PM/RJR objected to inflammatory, prejudicial arguments | Court admonished counsel; flagged recurring improper arguments and warned for any retrial |
Key Cases Cited
- Sheffield v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 329 So. 3d 114 (Fla. 2021) (holding 1999 amendments to §768.73 apply in Engle‑progeny wrongful‑death actions where decedent died after amendments)
- Engle v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (class‑wide factual findings about cigarette causation and membership cut‑off)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2003) (punitive damages must relate to conduct that harmed plaintiff; dissimilar out‑of‑state or nonnexus conduct cannot justify punitive award)
- Tremblay v. Carter, 390 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (common‑law rule: spouse must be married at time of injury to recover loss of consortium)
- Kelly v. Georgia‑Pacific, LLC, 211 So. 3d 340 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (applies Tremblay to Wrongful Death Act; spouse who married after injury may not recover consortium/pain & suffering)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Konzelman, 248 So. 3d 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (earlier panel applying pre‑1999 §768.73 in Engle cases; later superseded by Sheffield)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Ciccone, 123 So. 3d 604 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (defining ‘‘manifestation’’ for Engle class membership)
- Humana Health Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Chipps, 802 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (evidence imputing nonparty/parent‑company conduct to defendant was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial)