Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Hess
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6882
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- PM USA appeals a final judgment in a post-Engle action brought by Elaine Hess as surviving spouse and personal representative for Stuart Hess’s death from smoking-related illness.
- Phase I found Hess addicted to nicotine and his addiction was a legal cause of death; Hess smoked PM USA Benson & Hedges cigarettes.
- Phase II jury findings bound Engle conduct findings and allocated fault: Hess 58%, PM USA 42%, and punitive damages for fraud by concealment set at $5 million.
- Compensatory damages were $3 million but reduced to $1.26 million due to Hess’s comparative fault.
- The trial court denied PM USA’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on fraudulent concealment and denied remittitur; PM USA appeals and Hess cross-appeals the compensatory-damages reduction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the fraudulent concealment claim is barred by the statute of repose | Hess contends Engle established conduct; repose focuses on defendant's fraud date | PM USA argues all elements, including reliance, occurred outside 12-year repose | Fraudulent concealment claim barred by statute of repose; reversal on that claim |
| Whether Engle findings were misapplied to the fraudulent concealment claim and other claims | Engle conduct elements suffice; plaintiff must still prove reliance and damages | Engle findings alone determine conduct; causation elements unnecessary for some claims | Engle findings properly applied; reliance/damages must be proved, and jury instructed accordingly; overall application affirmed for non-concealment claims |
| Whether punitive damages on the fraudulent concealment claim were warranted given the repose ruling | Punitive damages premised on concealment claim | Repose bars concealment-based punitive damages | Remains moot due to reversal on the concealment claim; punitive damages reversed with it |
| Whether reduction of compensatory damages by the trial court was proper in light of Hess's comparative fault (cross-appeal) | Cross-appeal posits error in reduction; substance of action is intentional concealment | Remittitur/offsets permitted by statute; Engle findings control causation | Issue deemed moot after reversal on concealment claim; cross-appeal vacated accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla.2006) ( Engle findings establish conduct elements but not all elements of fraud claims; reliance still required)
- Brown v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 70 So.3d 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (Engle findings apply to conduct; causation instructions may be required for Engle-based claims)
- Douglas, Philip Morris USA v. Douglas, 83 So.3d 1002 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (affirming final judgment on strict liability via Phase I findings with limited Phase II causation)
- Puchner v. Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc., 553 So.2d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (statute of repose affects accrual when final element occurs)
- Laschke v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 766 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (conspiracy timing vs. fraud by concealment; repose relevance)
- Nehme v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Labs., Inc., 863 So.2d 201 (Fla.2003) (statute of repose extinguishes causes of action after period)
- Carr v. Broward County, 505 So.2d 568 (Fla.4th DCA 1987) (discusses repose effect on accrual)