Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Kayton
104 So. 3d 1145
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- This is an Engle progeny case where Tate sued Philip Morris USA, Inc. for strict liability, negligence, and conspiracy to commit fraudulent concealment, with a jury awarding $8,000,000 in compensatories and $16,215,000 in punitive damages.
- The trial court limited Philip Morris’s statute of repose defense at trial, precluding it as a defense.
- The jury found reliance on acts in furtherance of a conspiracy to conceal information, but awarded no reliance on fraudulent statements by Philip Morris itself, and found Philip Morris liable on conspiracy to commit fraudulent concealment.
- Engle Phase I findings were used to establish conduct elements for purposes of later proceedings; post-trial motions challenged this approach and other defenses.
- The trial court denied post-trial motions including directed verdict on conspiracy, remittitur, new trial, and reduction of damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Engle Phase I findings can conclusively establish conduct elements | Tate: Phase I findings preclude a need for individualized showing here; conduct elements are established. | Philip Morris: Phase I findings cannot bar individualized reliance/standing defenses; statute of repose timing matters. | Affirmed partial summary judgment; conduct elements upheld. |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support conspiracy to commit fraudulent concealment | Tate relied on pervasive advertising and concealment by conspirators. | Philip Morris: insufficient evidence given lack of direct statements by co-conspirators. | Sufficient evidence supported conspiracy claim; directed verdict denial affirmed. |
| Error in striking statute of repose defense on conspiracy claim | Estate should be able to litigate reliance within repose window; individualized issue for jury. | Striking repose defense denied due process; repose must be adjudicated per plaintiff. | Trial court erred; punitive damages reversed on remand; retrial limited to repose issue. |
| Remittitur and punitive damages in light of the repose issue | Punitive damages warranted given defendant’s conduct; no excess. | Damages were excessive due to inflammatory arguments and miscalculation. | Punitive damages not facially excessive; remains approved but remand contingent on repose outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (establishes conduct elements and res judicata effect in Engle progeny cases)
- Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Cohen, 102 So.3d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (approval of punitive damages framework in Engle progeny; remittitur mechanics)
- Lassitter v. International Union of Operating Engineers, 349 So.2d 622 (Fla. 1976) (remittitur standard for excessive non-economic damages)
- City of Hollywood v. Hogan, 986 So.2d 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (remittitur proximity to passion/prejudice standard)
- Townsend v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 90 So.3d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (Engle progeny punitive damages context)