R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Buonomo
138 So. 3d 1049
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Matthew Buonomo began smoking at 13 and, after decades of heavy smoking, developed COPD and died in 2008; his widow, Connie Buonomo, sued R.J. Reynolds (RJR) in an Engle-progeny case.
- Phase I established Engle findings (nicotine addictive, smoking causes COPD, RJR negligent, cigarettes defective, and RJR engaged in concealment); Phase II addressed causation, reliance, damages, and punitive liability.
- The jury found for plaintiff, apportioning 77.5% fault to RJR and 22.5% to Buonomo, awarded $5,235,000 in compensatory damages and $25,000,000 in punitive damages.
- Trial court, on remittitur, reduced compensatory damages to reflect smoker’s 22.5% fault and reduced punitive damages to $15,705,000 (believing § 768.73 required a three-times cap).
- RJR appealed the striking of its statute-of-repose defense to fraud-based claims; plaintiff cross-appealed the punitive-damages reduction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in striking RJR's statute-of-repose defense to fraudulent concealment and conspiracy claims | Buonomo: Engle findings establish concealment and date irrelevant; no individualized repose inquiry | RJR: Repose is individualized; plaintiff must prove detrimental reliance within 12 years of filing | Reversed as to fraud/conspiracy claims; striking the defense was error; remand for jury determination on repose |
| Whether punitive damages must be reduced to three times compensatory under § 768.73 | Buonomo: Trial court correctly applied statute to reduce punitive award | RJR: (not primary here) punitive award proper as jury found malice/gross negligence | Court: Trial court misapplied post-1999 statutory cap; 1995 version governs and gives court discretion to reinstate or exceed three-times cap upon clear and convincing showing; remand for exercise of that discretion |
| Whether compensatory damages reduction for smoker's fault was improper | Buonomo: Reduction was improper because gist is intentional tort | RJR: Reduction appropriate under comparative fault statute | Court: Plaintiff invited/waived the issue in this case; court did not reach merits (affirmed in part) |
| Whether overall damages violated due process | Buonomo: Awards supported by evidence | RJR: Awards excessive and violate due process | Court: Neither the original nor reduced punitive awards were constitutionally excessive; no due-process reversal needed |
Key Cases Cited
- Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (establishing common findings used in Engle-progeny suits)
- Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Putney, 117 So.3d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (statute-of-repose is individualized in Engle-progeny cases)
- Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Kayton, 104 So.3d 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (fraudulent-concealment claims still require proof of plaintiff's detrimental reliance)
- Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Hess, 95 So.3d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (same; statute-of-repose inquiry tied to plaintiff's reliance)
- Johnson v. Davis, 480 So.2d 625 (Fla. 1985) (fraud requires detrimental reliance)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin, 53 So.3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (upholding substantial punitive awards in tobacco litigation)
- Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Mancusi, 632 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 1994) (substantive statute amendments not applied retroactively to causes accruing earlier)
- St. John v. Coisman, 799 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (applicable statutory version determined by accrual date)