R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. Evers
2D16-1603
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Sep 15, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Cindy Evers, as personal representative of Jacqueline Loyd's estate, sued R.J. Reynolds in an Engle‑progeny wrongful‑death action alleging negligence, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, and conspiracy; jury found Loyd an Engle class member.
- At trial the jury awarded $2,950,000 in noneconomic compensatory damages (allocated 31% to Loyd, 60% to RJR, 9% to Lorillard) and $12,360,024 in punitive damages (tied to concealment/conspiracy).
- Trial court directed verdict for RJR on concealment/conspiracy, vacating punitive damages and reducing compensatory award for comparative fault; this court reversed the directed verdict and reinstated the punitive award on first appeal.
- On remand the trial court entered a second amended final judgment: it applied the pre‑1999 punitive damages statute, found clear and convincing evidence to exceed the statutory cap, concluded compensatory damages were not reduced for comparative fault (as intentional tort), and awarded interest from the original judgment date.
- RJR appealed multiple issues; the Second DCA affirmed, addressing (1) applicability of the pre‑1999 punitive statute and the sufficiency of evidence to exceed the cap, and (2) award of interest from the original judgment date; comparative‑fault arguments were controlled by Boatright.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which version of §768.73 applies to Engle‑progeny claims | Evers: pre‑1999 statute applies because Engle class manifestations occurred before 11/21/1996 and claims relate back to Engle | RJR: post‑1999 statute governs because wrongful‑death claim arose in 2007 | Court: pre‑1999 version applies; Engle‑progeny claims relate back to class and applying post‑1999 amendments would impair substantive Engle rights |
| Whether a 3:1 punitive cap under pre‑1999 §768.73 applied and whether plaintiff proved entitlement to exceed it | Evers: even if cap exists, she proved by clear and convincing evidence that the award was not excessive | RJR: cap applies and Evers failed to meet the clear‑and‑convincing burden; alternatively waived issue | Court: RJR largely waived timely challenge; alternatively, trial court did not abuse discretion — clear and convincing evidence supported exceeding the cap |
| Whether compensatory award must be reduced for decedent's comparative fault | Evers: compensatory award not reduced here (court treated action as grounded in intentional concealment) | RJR: compensatory damages should be reduced by Loyd’s comparative fault | Court: issue controlled by Boatright; Court declines further treatment and rejects reduction argument in light of prevailing precedent |
| Proper accrual date for postjudgment interest | Evers: interest should run from original judgment date (May 15, 2013) | RJR: because judgment was reversed and remanded, interest should run from second amended judgment date | Court: interest accrues from original judgment date because the reversal affected only amounts and the underlying verdicts remained in favor of plaintiff |
Key Cases Cited
- Engle v. Liggett Grp., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (establishes Engle class findings and res judicata effect for progeny claims)
- Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Boatright, 217 So. 3d 166 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (controls comparative‑fault reduction issue in Engle‑progeny cases)
- Soffer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 187 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. 2016) (punitive‑damages claims are dependent on underlying cause of action; limits res judicata effect for punitive awards)
- Owens‑Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Ballard, 749 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 1999) (standard of appellate review for punitive damages awards)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2003) (due process constraints on punitive damages and guideposts for proportionality review)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) (standard that appellate court will not overturn findings unless no reasonable judge could reach same conclusion)
- Toombs v. Alamo Rent‑A‑Car, Inc., 833 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 2002) (wrongful death action is derivative of decedent's personal injury cause of action)
- Amerace Corp. v. Stallings, 823 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 2002) (money judgment interest accrual rules)