R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Odom, 210 So. 3d 696

Plaintiff (Gwendolyn Odom, representative of Juanita Thurston’s estate) sued R.J. Reynolds (RJR) under Engle progeny theories (strict liability, negligence, concealment fraud, conspiracy) alleging her mother died of lung cancer caused by cigarette addiction.
Trial was bifurcated: Phase I (Engle-class membership, causation, compensatory damages, punitive entitlement) resulted in a $6 million compensatory award (25% comparative fault) and a finding punitive damages were warranted.
Phase II (punitive damages amount) produced a $14 million punitive award after argument about RJR’s post-illness conduct and whether it had “taken responsibility.”
RJR moved post-trial for remittitur/new trial (arguing compensatory award excessive), for directed verdict on reliance (post-May 5, 1992 statements), and retrial based on improper closing comments; plaintiff cross-appealed limited jury instructions and punitive-damages availability issues.
The appellate court affirmed rulings on reliance and due-process/Engle findings and on the closing-comments challenge, but held the $6M compensatory award (and therefore the $14M punitive award) was excessive and remanded for remittitur or a new trial on damages only.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether compensatory award was excessive/remittitur required	Award fairly compensates non‑economic loss from mother’s death given their close relationship and care during illness	$6M to an adult independent child is excessive compared to Engle precedent and other wrongful‑death awards	Reversed: $6M compensatory was excessive; remand for remittitur or new trial on damages (punitive vacated as derivative)
Whether plaintiff proved detrimental reliance (post‑May 5, 1992) for concealment/conspiracy claims	Evidence of reliance on RJR statements supports denial of directed verdict	Reliance not proved as to statements after May 5, 1992; directed verdict warranted	Affirmed (court rejected RJR’s directed‑verdict argument) per cited precedent (no further comment)
Whether plaintiff’s closing comments in punitive phase (failure to accept responsibility) warranted new trial	Comments were proper in punitive phase to show need for punishment/deterrence	Comments improperly attacked RJR for defending the case and could have tainted jury	Affirmed: comments were made in punitive phase only and were permissible there; no new trial needed
Whether Engle findings application violated RJR’s due process	Plaintiff relied on Engle findings as allowed	Application violated due process	Affirmed (no due‑process violation)

Engle v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (foundation for Engle‑progeny litigation)
Hess v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 175 So.3d 687 (Fla. 2015) (reliance and related Engle issues)
Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Douglas, 110 So.3d 419 (Fla. 2013) (reliance and Engle progeny guidance)
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Webb, 93 So.3d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (adult child compensatory awards and excessiveness comparison)
Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Putney, 199 So.3d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (limits on large awards to independent adult children)
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Townsend, 90 So.3d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (affirming large award to a spouse with close caregiving facts)
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Calloway, 201 So.3d 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (preserved closing‑argument objections over “failure to accept responsibility” comments require reversal)
Intramed, Inc. v. Guider, 93 So.3d 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (improper to argue defendant should be punished for defending liability/damages)
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Gafney, 188 So.3d 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (limits on "send a message" arguments when compensatory damages are at issue)
Soffer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 187 So.3d 1219 (Fla. 2016) (punitive damages available on product‑defect and negligence claims)