R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. James Whitmire, as Personal etc., 260 So. 3d 536

Decedent smoked from age ~14 until lung cancer diagnosis in 1995; typically 1–2 packs/day and switched among Winston and Salem brands.
Personal representative (Whitmire) sued R.J. Reynolds (RJR) as Engle-progeny plaintiff for strict liability, negligence, fraudulent concealment, and civil conspiracy to fraudulently conceal.
At trial jury found decedent addicted to nicotine, addiction caused her cancer/death, apportioned 33% fault to decedent and 67% to RJR, and awarded $3 million compensatory damages.
RJR moved for directed verdict asserting plaintiff failed to prove individual detrimental reliance on RJR’s false or misleading statements; trial court denied both pre- and post-verdict directed-verdict motions and entered judgment without reducing the award for comparative fault.
On appeal the First DCA held Engle-progeny plaintiffs must prove individual detrimental reliance to prevail on fraudulent concealment (even given Engle Phase I findings), and found the record lacked sufficient evidence that the decedent relied on RJR’s misrepresentations or omissions.
The court reversed the denial of RJR’s directed verdict on fraudulent concealment and conspiracy, directed entry of judgment for RJR on those claims, and remanded to reduce the compensatory award to account for the decedent’s comparative fault.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff proved detrimental reliance for fraudulent concealment	Whitmire: reliance may be inferred from decedent’s smoking history, media exposure, and pervasive misleading industry campaigns (per Martin)	RJR: no evidence links any false/omitted industry statement to decedent’s decision-making; exposure ≠ reliance	Reversed — plaintiff failed as a matter of law to prove individualized detrimental reliance; directed verdict required on fraudulent concealment and conspiracy
Whether circumstantial evidence of general advertising/exposure suffices to prove individual reliance	Whitmire: circumstantial proof (life, knowledge, attitudes, smoking behavior) permits inference of reliance without a specific statement	RJR: circumstantial evidence here is speculative and legally insufficient to establish reliance	Court: Circumstantial evidence can suffice but must support a reasonable, non-speculative inference of individualized reliance; here it did not
Whether plaintiff must show reliance on a specific statement	Whitmire: not required; reliance can be on omissions/industry campaign	RJR: jury must find reliance on a specific ‘‘statement’’ or direct assertion	Court: did not decide the specific-instruction issue (unnecessary given reversal) but reaffirmed that detrimental reliance is required; cited authority rejecting strict requirement that reliance be on a single specific statement

Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (decertified class but preserved certain Phase I factual findings for Engle-progeny suits)
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin, 53 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (held detrimental reliance may be proven by circumstantial evidence in Engle-progeny case)
Hess v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 175 So. 3d 687 (Fla. 2015) (Engle-progeny plaintiffs must prove detrimental reliance for fraudulent concealment)
Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Douglas, 110 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 2013) (decertification rationale: individualized issues like causation and comparative fault predominate)
Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Trusell, 131 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1961) (circumstantial evidence cannot support a civil verdict if it rests on mere speculation)
Voelker v. Combined Ins. Co. of Am., 73 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 1954) (foundational discussion of circumstantial evidence supporting civil liability)