165 So. 3d 36
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiff Antonio Cuculino sued Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds in an Engle-progeny action, alleging coronary heart disease caused by smoking; claims included fraudulent concealment, conspiracy, negligence, and strict liability.
- Trial court granted partial summary judgment for defendants precluding punitive damages on Cuculino’s negligence and strict liability claims.
- After a two-week trial, the jury: fully exonerated R.J. Reynolds; found for Cuculino on negligence and strict liability against Philip Morris and awarded $12.5 million; found Cuculino 60% at fault and Philip Morris 40%, reducing the judgment to $5 million; found for Philip Morris on fraudulent concealment and conspiracy, so punitive damages were not considered.
- Philip Morris moved for a new trial arguing prejudicial improper comments by plaintiff’s counsel during closing; the trial court denied the motion and entered final judgment for Cuculino.
- On appeal, Philip Morris argued the closing remarks warranted a new trial; Cuculino cross-appealed the preclusion of punitive damages on non-intentional torts and denial of attorney’s fees under the offer-of-judgment statute.
- The appellate court affirmed: (1) denial of new trial (comments improper but not so prejudicial as to deny a fair trial), (2) summary judgment precluding punitive damages on negligence/strict liability, and (3) denial of attorney’s fees (offer did not strictly comply).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether improper closing argument required new trial | Counsel’s remarks were not so prejudicial to warrant new trial; verdict reflects fairness | Remarks were highly prejudicial and inflamed the jury, producing grossly excessive verdict | Court: Remarks improper but not so highly prejudicial; no abuse of discretion in denying new trial |
| Whether punitive damages allowed for negligence and strict liability claims | Punitive damages should be available on non-intentional tort claims | Summary judgment correctly bars punitive damages on non-intentional torts per controlling precedent | Court: Affirmed partial summary judgment precluding punitive damages on negligence and strict liability |
| Whether the $12.5M verdict was grossly excessive / lacked evidentiary nexus | Verdict supported by evidence of serious, ongoing cardiac injuries and future risk | Verdict was inflated by improper argument and exceeded requested damages | Court: Award had logical nexus to evidence; magnitude alone insufficient to show improper motivation; affirmed |
| Whether plaintiff entitled to attorney’s fees under offer-of-judgment statute | Offer justified award of fees given verdict | Offer did not strictly comply with statutory/rule requirements | Court: Denial of fees affirmed because offer failed to strictly comply with section 768.79 and rule 1.442 |
Key Cases Cited
- Engle v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (framework for reviewing Engle-progeny actions and standards for improper argument/new trial review)
- Rudy’s Glass Constr. Co. v. Robins, 427 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (jury may award damages equal to or in excess of amounts requested in closing)
- Tanner v. Beck, 907 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (standard for granting new trial where opposing counsel’s argument was improper and prejudicial)