Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Douglas
83 So. 3d 1002
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Engle class found eight Phase I findings about defendants' conduct and health effects of smoking, binding for later individual actions.
- Plaintiff Douglas, as personal representative, sought damages for smoking-related COPD and lung cancer causing death in 2008.
- Jury apportioned fault among Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, and Liggett; damages awarded were $2.5 million.
- Trial instructed that Phase I findings apply to post-Engle III damages actions, including legal causation questions.
- Tobacco Companies argued Phase I findings cannot foreclose elements of individual causes of action and challenged class-members’ bifurcated trial approach.
- Florida courts and the Eleventh Circuit had issued competing views on whether Phase I findings create issue preclusion or broader preclusion in post-Engle III suits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of Phase I findings on post-Engle III claims | Douglas: Phase I findings bind future trials; preclude relitigation of conduct issues. | Tobacco Companies: Findings only preclude certain issues, not all elements; relitigation required. | Phase I findings have issue preclusion effect on conduct elements in post-Engle III actions. |
| Whether res judicata applies to Phase I findings in damages trials | Douglas: Engle III intended broad preclusion of common issues in subsequent actions. | Tobacco Companies: Engle III does not bar proving causation and damages anew. | Engle III findings preclude relitigation of conduct issues; damages and causation addressed in second phase remain viable. |
| Appropriate trial structure for post-Engle III suits | Douglas: No need to reprove conduct; bifurcation not required. | Tobacco Companies: Trial should separately address legal causation and damages. | Court endorsed bifurcated approach consistent with Engle III and post-Engle proceedings. |
| Due process concerns about using Phase I findings as res judicata | Douglas: Preclusion is proper; due process not violated. | Tobacco Companies: Res judicata in Phase I violates due process. | Florida court rejected due process challenge; certified question on public importance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla.2006) (Engle III; Phase I findings binding in later actions)
- Brown v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 611 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir.2010) (Phase I findings may have issue preclusion effect)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin, 53 So.3d 1060 (Fla.1st DCA2010) (Phase I findings establish conduct elements; damages/causation must be shown)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Brown, 70 So.3d 707 (Fla.4th DCA2011) (Affirms bifurcated approach; Phase I governs conduct elements in post-Engle actions)