R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. Joan Schoeff, as Personal Representative of the Estate of James Edward Schoeff
2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 16577
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- James Schoeff (decedent) was an Engle-class member who died of lung cancer; his wife Joan Schoeff Spolzino (representative) sued R.J. Reynolds (RJR) alleging addiction-caused death and claims including strict liability, negligence, and intentional torts (fraudulent concealment).
- Jury found Schoeff addicted, that addiction and RJR’s negligence and defective cigarettes were legal causes of his cancer/death, and allocated 25% comparative fault to Schoeff; compensatory damages were $10.5 million and punitive damages $30 million.
- Plaintiff’s counsel repeatedly told the jury to find some percentage of fault for Schoeff (arguing apportionment applied to negligence/strict liability but not to intentional torts) and—in closing on punitive—asked the jury not to exceed $25 million (jury awarded $30 million).
- Trial court reduced the compensatory award to account for Schoeff’s 25% comparative fault, denied remittitur of compensatory and punitive awards, and entered final judgment for $7,875,000 compensatory (post-reduction) and $30,000,000 punitive.
- On appeal RJR argued (1) lack of addiction causation; (2) improper closing remarks required new trial; (3) compensatory and punitive awards were excessive and required remittitur; and (4) application of Engle findings violated due process. Plaintiff cross-appealed the compensatory reduction.
- The district court affirmed denial of directed verdict, new trial, remittitur of compensatory award, and application of Engle findings; reversed and remanded only to order remittitur (or new punitive trial) on the $30M punitive award, and affirmed the compensatory reduction (finding waiver and that the suit’s core is products-liability/negligence).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Directed verdict: addiction causation | Schoeff proved addiction caused cancer/death under Engle findings | RJR: plaintiff failed to prove addiction causation | Affirmed: jury verdict on addiction causation upheld |
| 2. Closing comments / new trial | Counsel’s remarks (including asking jury not to exceed $25M) were proper; no prejudice | RJR: counsel’s comments warranted new trial | Denied: no new trial; remarks did not require reversal |
| 3. Punitive damages remittitur / due process | $30M punitive is reasonable and within constitutional limits | RJR: $30M punitive (2.9:1 to compensatory) is excessive and violates due process; counsel asked jury to cap at $25M so $30M lacks logical basis | Reversed in part: $30M punitive is excessive or, at minimum, must be remitted because jury exceeded plaintiff’s requested cap; remand for remittitur or new punitive trial if defendant rejects remittitur amount |
| 4. Comparative-fault reduction (plaintiff cross-appeal) | Plaintiff: intentional-tort findings (fraudulent concealment) bar applying comparative-fault reduction | RJR: plaintiff waived the intentional-tort exception by repeatedly asking jury to apportion fault and the case is, at its core, products-liability/negligence so comparative fault applies | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion—plaintiff invited/waived the argument and, on the merits, the action’s core is negligence/products liability so damages may be reduced by comparative fault |
Key Cases Cited
- Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (class findings applicable to Engle progeny tobacco cases)
- Merrill Crossings Associates v. McDonald, 705 So.2d 560 (Fla. 1997) (test whether entire action is founded on an intentional tort)
- Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Ballard, 749 So.2d 488 (Fla. 1999) (purpose and limits of punitive damages)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin, 53 So.3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (upholding large punitive award in tobacco case)
- Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Alexander, 123 So.3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (upholding substantial punitive damages in similar record)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Townsend, 90 So.3d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (removing punitive award as excessive in tobacco case)
- Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Douglas, 110 So.3d 419 (Fla. 2013) (Engle progeny remedial framework and application)