228 So. 3d 684
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- This is an Engle-progeny wrongful-death suit where plaintiff (Appellee) obtained a jury verdict awarding $3,094,000 compensatory damages (jointly and severally) and $7,755,415 punitive damages against each defendant (Appellants).
- Juror Michael Taylor, during voir dire, completed a questionnaire disclosing he was a former 28‑year smoker ("clean" 5 years), family smoking history, and wrote neutral/limited answers about cigarette companies ("they are a business").
- After trial began, defendants discovered social‑media posts by Taylor expressing strong anti‑tobacco sentiments and moved mid‑trial to remove him; the trial court denied the motion and later denied a post‑verdict new‑trial motion. Defendants never sought further voir dire or a juror interview after discovery of the posts.
- The trial court applied De La Rosa’s three‑part test for juror nondisclosure (relevance, concealment, and diligence) and concluded plaintiffs met relevance but defendants failed the concealment and diligence prongs.
- Defendants also challenged (1) refusal to reduce compensatory damages by the decedent’s 70% fault, (2) the trial court’s use of pre‑1999 punitive‑damages law (challenge to statute version and instruction), and (3) asserted due‑process problems with using Engle findings.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding no abuse of discretion on juror issues, that comparative fault need not be apportioned for the jury’s finding of intentional fraud/conspiracy (following Sury), that pre‑1999 punitive statutes applied (claims accrued/preexisted 1996/Engle relation‑back), and that Engle usage does not violate due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror misconduct / nondisclosure | Taylor’s questionnaire and voir dire disclosures were adequate; posts were relevant but did not show concealment by juror or lack of defense diligence | Taylor concealed material bias against tobacco companies (social‑media posts) when directly asked his opinion of cigarette companies; lack of diligence is defendant’s fault only if voir dire was adequate | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion — posts were relevant but juror did not conceal given broad questionnaire answers and defendants lacked due diligence in follow‑up/interview (De La Rosa prongs 2 & 3 not met) |
| Comparative fault reduction | Reduce compensatory damages by decedent’s 70% fault | Fault apportionment is inappropriate where jury found intentional torts (fraudulent concealment and conspiracy) | Affirmed: no apportionment required under §768.81 for intentional torts — follows R.J. Reynolds v. Sury |
| Applicable punitive damages statute / jury instruction | Post‑1999 amendments (higher standard and different cap) apply, so verdict/instruction invalid | Pre‑1999 law applies because plaintiff’s causes of action accrued/manifested and Engle‑class relation‑back places substantive rights under the older statute | Affirmed: pre‑1999 punitive statutes govern (claims manifested pre‑11/21/1996; initial suit filed before amendments; applying new law would impair substantive rights) |
| Due process challenge to Engle findings | (Preserved) Engle findings violate due process | Engle and progeny are constitutionally valid as applied | Rejected: Florida Supreme Court precedent (Douglas et al.) controls; no due‑process violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (class findings on tobacco liability forming Engle‑progeny framework)
- De La Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So.2d 239 (Fla. 1995) (three‑part test for juror nondisclosure: relevance, concealment, diligence)
- Roberts ex rel. Estate of Roberts v. Tejada, 814 So.2d 334 (Fla. 2002) (juror nondisclosure and diligence analysis; ‘‘yes/no’’ factual disclosures distinguishable)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Sury, 118 So.3d 849 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (fault apportionment not required where defendant committed intentional torts)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Ciccone, 190 So.3d 1028 (Fla. 2016) (use of manifestation date for Engle‑class membership)
- Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Douglas, 110 So.3d 419 (Fla. 2013) (Engle‑progeny procedures and use of class findings)
- Alamo Rent‑A‑Car, Inc. v. Mancusi, 632 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 1994) (substantive rights vest at accrual; impairment by later statute application disfavored)
- Martin v. United Security Services, Inc., 314 So.2d 765 (Fla. 1975) (punitive damages available in wrongful‑death derivative actions)