Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Duignan
243 So. 3d 426
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Decedent Douglas Duignan smoked PM and Reynolds cigarettes from his teens, developed lung cancer in 1992, and died; the Estate brought an Engle-progeny suit alleging strict liability, negligence, fraud by concealment, conspiracy to conceal, and punitive damages.
- Engle Phase I findings (Engle v. Liggett Grp.) are binding in progeny suits: nicotine is addictive; certain diseases (including lung cancer) are caused by smoking; tobacco companies concealed material information and conspired to do so.
- At trial the Estate relied on Engle findings and documentary evidence of decades-long tobacco concealment/advertising; defendants argued Duignan smoked because he liked it (not because of addiction or reliance) and presented deposition testimony of his brother Dennis read to the jury.
- During deliberations the jury asked for Dennis Duignan’s deposition transcript; the trial court told jurors readbacks are "not generally done" and urged reliance on "collective recollection," effectively discouraging a readback.
- The jury found for the Estate, awarding compensatory and punitive damages and apportioning comparative fault; the trial court entered judgment and denied defendants’ request to apply certain punitive-damage credits; defendants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Estate) | Defendant's Argument (PM/Reynolds) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Readback response to jury note | No error; court's comments were appropriate and harmless | Court misled jury, discouraged readback of key deposition, and commented on evidence | Reversed: court abused discretion; statement likely discouraged readback and error not harmless; new trial ordered |
| Reliance instruction for fraud/conspiracy | Special instruction was adequate given Engle findings and separate materiality instruction | Instruction should have required detrimental reliance on "a statement" or at least on a specific misapprehension about concealed facts | Reversed as to fraud/conspiracy claims: instruction misstated the reliance element (asked for general reliance on defendants to disclose) and could have misled jury; new trial on those claims required |
| Applicability of comparative fault to intentional tort-based findings | Estate: Engle findings convert some claims into intentional torts not subject to comparative fault | Defendants: comparative fault should reduce compensatory award despite Engle findings | Court followed recent Boatright decision: no merit to defendants' comparative-fault argument here; conflict with other DCA cases certified but not dispositive in this opinion |
| Credit against punitive damages from Engle Guaranteed Sum Stipulation | Estate: no credit required | Defendants: guaranteed-sum in original Engle requires credit against punitive awards | Court rejected defendants’ challenge here (followed Boatright); not dispositive on remand due to reversal on other grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Engle v. Liggett Grp., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (Phase I findings binding in Engle-progeny suits regarding addiction, causation, concealment, and conspiracy)
- Hazuri v. State, 91 So. 3d 836 (Fla. 2012) (trial court must inform jury transcripts are unavailable but readback of testimony is possible; should not mislead jury into thinking readbacks are prohibited)
- State v. Barrow, 91 So. 3d 826 (Fla. 2012) (readback jurisprudence and standard of review discussion)
- Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Boatright, 217 So. 3d 166 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (addressing comparative-fault and guaranteed-sum credit issues in Engle-progeny context)
- Avila v. State, 781 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (discussing trial court discretion on readbacks)