R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. Pamela Ciccone, etc.
190 So. 3d 1028
Fla.2016Background
- Engle class: Florida class certified for smokers who “have suffered, presently suffer or who have died from diseases and medical conditions caused by their addiction to cigarettes” with a cut-off date of November 21, 1996 (trial court recertification).
- Ciccone sued R.J. Reynolds; her husband (deceased 2002) allegedly developed peripheral vascular disease (PVD) before the cut-off date; PVD diagnosis occurred after 1996.
- Trial dispute: whether “manifestation” (for Engle class membership) requires only symptoms or also requires that the plaintiff know or reasonably should have known of a causal link to smoking. Jury was instructed manifestation = symptoms or diagnosis; jury found Ciccone within Engle class and returned verdicts for liability and damages.
- Fourth District affirmed, holding manifestation means onset of symptoms (no knowledge requirement); First District in Castleman had held manifestation requires plaintiff knowledge sufficient to commence suit.
- Florida Supreme Court granted conflict review and held that for Engle class membership “manifestation” means when the plaintiff began suffering or experiencing symptoms; no pre-1996 diagnosis or knowledge of tobacco causation required. Court approved Ciccone/Fourth District and disapproved Castleman/First District; remanded and quashed Fourth District’s punitive-damages ruling consistent with Soffer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Definition of “manifestation” for Engle class membership | Ciccone: manifestation occurs when the plaintiff began suffering symptoms (no knowledge or formal diagnosis required). | R.J. Reynolds: manifestation should require plaintiff knowledge or reasonable notice of causal link (statute-of-limitations/creeping-disease accrual standard). | Held: manifestation = the point the plaintiff began suffering or experiencing symptoms; no knowledge or diagnosis required. |
| Applicability of statute-of-limitations/"creeping disease" accrual rules to class membership | N/A (argued by plaintiff that accrual rules do not control class membership). | R.J. Reynolds: accrual rules and knowledge requirement apply; otherwise class could include plaintiffs whose causes of action had not accrued. | Held: statutes-of-limitations accrual policy is inapplicable to Engle class membership; different policy goals govern. |
| Effect on class notice/opt-out and due process | Ciccone: Engle’s cut-off and other limits preserve a finite class; notice/opt-out rights not undermined. | R.J. Reynolds: allowing non‑aware plaintiffs renders opt-out meaningless and risks open‑ended class/due process problems. | Held: Engle already fixed a finite class via the cut-off date and other limits; definition adopted does not reopen class or defeat opt-out. |
| Punitive damages availability in Engle progeny actions | Ciccone sought punitive damages on gross negligence claim. | R.J. Reynolds argued punitive damages unavailable under certain claims given Engle progeny limits. | Court approved Ciccone on manifestation but quashed Fourth District’s punitive‑damages resolution and remanded consistent with Soffer (punitive‑damages issues treated per that ruling). |
Key Cases Cited
- Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (established Engle class description and November 21, 1996 cut-off; held manifestation, not diagnosis, is the critical event for class membership)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Ciccone, 123 So.3d 604 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (adopted symptom-based manifestation test; affirmed liability findings except punitive damages)
- Castleman v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 97 So.3d 875 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (held manifestation requires plaintiff knowledge sufficient to file a nonfrivolous suit)
- Carter v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 778 So.2d 932 (Fla. 2000) (creeping-disease accrual rule: statute of limitations begins when plaintiff has evidence of causal relationship)
- Soffer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 187 So.3d 1219 (Fla. 2016) (addresses availability of punitive damages in Engle progeny actions)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (class-certification and notice concerns in large, exposure-only classes; distinguished by court)