Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Putney
117 So. 3d 798
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- This is an Engle progeny case brought by Sharon Putney as personal representative of Margot Putney’s estate against Philip Morris USA, RJ Reynolds, and Liggett Group LLC.
- Plaintiff alleged Margot died of small cell lung cancer and asserted strict liability, negligence, fraud by concealment, and conspiracy to commit fraud by concealment.
- Plaintiff sought recovery for the estate and for loss of consortium for herself and two adult siblings, plus punitive damages.
- Prior to trial, the trial court granted summary judgment that Engle Phase I findings precluded the defendants’ affirmative defenses, including the statute of repose.
- The jury found for Plaintiff on negligence, strict liability, and conspiracy; found for defendants on fraud by concealment; allocated liability among defendants; damages included medical/funeral expenses and $5 million loss of consortium to each of Margot’s three children; punitive damages were awarded against RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conspiracy claim viability after lack of underlying fraud | Putney argues conspiracy is independent tort despite fraud finding. | Tobacco Companies argue conspiracy requires an actionable underlying tort and relies on lack of proof of reliance. | Conspiracy is independent tort; denial of post-trial judgment affirmed. |
| Remittitur on loss of consortium damages | Plaintiff contends awards are supported by evidence of emotional loss. | Awards are excessive compared to similar Engle cases and lack close caregiver relationship. | Remittitur warranted; trial court erred in denying remittitur. |
| Statute of repose defense | Defense should be adjudicated on individualized basis; summary judgment on repose was improper. | Defense should be decided after repose issue trial. | Reversal of punitive damages tied to conspiracy; remand for repose issue adjudication. |
| Denial of cause challenge to a juror | — | Trial court abused its discretion in denying cause challenge to a juror. | Affirmed without discussion that the trial court did not err in denying the cause challenge. |
Key Cases Cited
- Engle v. Liggett Group, 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (Engle findings support conspiracy theory and preclude defenses in Engle progeny actions)
- Palm Beach County Health Care District v. Professional Medical Education Inc., 13 So.3d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (recognizes exception for independent tort of conspiracy in Engle progeny context)
- Liappas v. Augoustis, 47 So.2d 582 (Fla.1950) (independent tort of conspiracy may arise from coercive power of defendants in combination)
- Snipes v. W. Flagler Kennel Club, Inc., 105 So.2d 164 (Fla.1958) (supports independent-conspiracy analysis under exceptional circumstances)
- Wright v. Yurko, 446 So.2d 1162 (Fla.5th DCA 1984) (conspiracy requires underlying actionable tort in some contexts)
- Kayton (Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Kayton), 104 So.3d 1145 (Fla.4th DCA 2012) (statute of repose is individualized defense; not determined by Phase I findings)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Townsend, 90 So.3d 307 (Fla.1st DCA 2012) (loss of consortium damages analysis in Engle progeny cases; closeness of relationship matters)
- Webb v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 93 So.3d 331 (Fla.1st DCA 2012) (large consortium awards not automatically upheld; proximity of relationship matters)
- Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Cohen, 102 So.3d 11 (Fla.4th DCA 2012) (reliance concepts in Engle conspiracies; general reliance evidence may suffice)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin, 53 So.3d 1060 (Fla.1st DCA 2010) (supports inference of reliance in Engle conspiracy context)
- Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Douglas, 110 So.3d 419 (Fla.2013) (Engle findings preclude or limit defenses in Engle progeny)