R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Webb
93 So. 3d 331
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Diane Webb, as personal representative of James Horner's estate, sued RJR for wrongful death andEngle class claims including strict liability, fraud by concealment, conspiracy to commit fraud by concealment, and negligence.
- Jury awarded $8 million compensatory and $72 million punitive; total judgment was $79.2 million in favor of Webb.
- Trial court denied remittitur/new trial; RJR appealed arguing multiple legal errors.
- Court affirmed liability but vacated damages and remanded for remittitur or new trial on damages only.
- Court held that the Engle findings may be used to prove elements; rejected preemption/repose as total bar.
- Court found the compensatory award excessive and shockingly disproportionate to the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accrual and limitations defense | Horner's claims accrued when cancer manifested. | First-injury rule and COPD knowledge trigger accrual earlier. | Trial court's accrual ruling affirmed; no error in denying limitations defense. |
| Excessiveness of compensatory damages | Compensatory award fairly reflects noneconomic damages for loss of companionship and guidance. | Award was excessive and not supported by the evidence. | Compensatory award vacated as excessive; remittitur or new trial required. |
| Punitive damages | Punitive damages appropriate given conduct and Engle findings. | Punitive damages improper if based on Engle findings or excessive. | Punitive damages vacated along with compensatory; remittitur or new trial on damages directed. |
| Statute of repose and preemption | Engle-related claims not barred by repose or preemption when tied to concealment. | Repose/preemption bars should extinguish concealment and conspiracy claims. | Statute not preempted; claims survive under Carter and related Florida decisions. |
| Use of Engle findings to prove elements | Engle findings adequately support elements of Webb's claims. | Using Engle findings violates due process or law by itself. | Court allowed use of Engle findings to establish elements; no due process violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carter v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 778 So.2d 932 (Fla. 2000) (preemption limits; fraud claims not preempted)
- Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (Engle progeny damages and standards; remittitur guidance)
- Laschke v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 766 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (conspiracy claims; accrual considerations)
- Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc. v. Cox, 481 So.2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (latency and accrual in asbestos cases; splitting causes of action)
- Barnes v. Clark Sand Co. Inc., 721 So.2d 329 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (manifestation rule for latent injuries)
- Copeland v. Armstrong Cork Co., 447 So.2d 922 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (latent disease concepts in injury accrual)
- Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Young, 690 So.2d 1377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (latent disease concepts in accrual analysis)