Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Hallgren
124 So. 3d 350
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Claire Hallgren died of lung cancer in 1995 after ~60 years smoking cigarettes made by Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds; her estate (through Theodore Hallgren) brought an Engle-progeny wrongful-death suit.
- Complaint asserted negligence, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, and conspiracy to conceal; punitive damages were sought on all counts.
- At a two-phase 2012 trial the jury found liability on all counts, apportioned fault (50% Claire, 25% each defendant), awarded compensatory damages (reduced for comparative fault) and awarded $750,000 punitive damages against each defendant.
- Defendants appealed, raising multiple grounds including statute-of-repose/statute-of-limitations defenses, challenges to fraudulent-concealment and conspiracy findings, jury-instruction issues, and whether punitive damages are available on negligence and strict-liability claims in an Engle progeny case.
- The Second District affirmed in all respects and (1) held the fraudulent-concealment and conspiracy claims were not time-barred given ongoing concealment up to the decedent’s death, and (2) held Engle progeny plaintiffs may seek punitive damages on negligence and strict-liability claims; conflict certified with other districts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fraudulent-concealment and conspiracy claims were barred by statute of repose | Hallgren: concealment was ongoing; last acts occurred through decedent’s death so repose not triggered | Tobacco Cos: last discrete acts occurred earlier; claims time-barred | Held: claims not barred — repose runs from last act of concealment; evidence showed ongoing concealment and reliance, so repose did not bar claims |
| Whether jury verdict/finding on fraudulent-concealment and conspiracy should be set aside (JNOV/new trial) | Hallgren: evidence supported the jury’s findings | Tobacco Cos: insufficient evidence / time bar warranted relief | Held: trial court did not err; evidence supported claims and repose defense failed |
| Whether punitive damages may be awarded on negligence and strict-liability claims in an Engle progeny action | Hallgren: Engle Phase I res judicata applies to substantive findings only; punitive damages are a remedy tied to substantive claims and may be pursued anew | Tobacco Cos: Engle class did not timely seek punitive damages on non-intentional claims; progeny must accept Engle’s procedural posture and cannot expand remedies | Held: progeny plaintiffs may seek punitive damages for negligence and strict liability; Engle’s res judicata effect is limited to substantive findings and does not bar remedies properly pleaded and proved in individual actions |
| Whether allowing punitive damages on non-intentional claims prejudices defendants / is barred by tolling rules | Hallgren: punitive damages are not a separate time-barred claim and follow the substantive claim; defendants had notice and opportunity to defend | Tobacco Cos: allowing punitive damages benefits from Engle tolling and prejudices defendants | Held: no unfair prejudice; punitive damages are auxiliary to substantive claims and were timely when tied to tolled substantive claims |
| Whether Engle Phase I precludes progeny plaintiffs from seeking remedies beyond those pursued at class trial | Hallgren: Phase I binds only substantive liability findings; remedies can be pursued individually | Tobacco Cos: progeny must accept all parameters of Engle (including absence of punitive damages on some theories) | Held: Phase I preclusive effect does not extend to bar remedies (punitive damages) that were not adjudicated on the merits in the class trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (decertified class; retained Phase I findings with res judicata effect for individual actions)
- Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Douglas, 110 So.3d 419 (Fla. 2013) (clarifies scope of Engle Phase I findings and progeny plaintiffs’ obligations to prove individual aspects)
- Soffer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 106 So.3d 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (held progeny plaintiffs cannot seek punitive damages on negligence/strict liability; conflict certified)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Ciccone, 123 So.3d 604 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (adopted Soffer analysis)
- Laschke v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 766 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (statute of repose runs from discrete defendant act; repose for ongoing concealment measured from last act relied upon)
- Kush v. Lloyd, 616 So.2d 415 (Fla. 1992) (statutes of repose principles)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin, 53 So.3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (reliance for fraudulent concealment may be inferred from pervasive misleading advertising)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Webb, 93 So.3d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (related Engle-progeny precedent on concealment/tolling)
- Frazier v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 89 So.3d 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (related authority on ongoing concealment and progeny claims)
- Hromyak v. Tyco Int’l Ltd., 942 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (distinguishable: class-action tolling limited to same claims, not remedies)
- Forzley v. AVCO Corp. Elecs. Div., 826 F.2d 974 (11th Cir. 1987) (district court amendment/relate-back principles; inapposite where remedy rather than new claim is sought)
- McCormack v. Abbott Labs., 617 F.Supp. 1521 (D. Mass. 1985) (after decertification individual plaintiffs bound by substantive rulings but may pursue individual remedies)
- Kent v. Sutker, 40 So.2d 145 (Fla. 1949) (technical/non-merits judgments ordinarily do not trigger res judicata to bar later claims)