290 So.3d 963
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2019Background
- John C. Price (decedent) began smoking as a child, smoked heavily for decades, developed COPD, and the Estate pursued an Engle-progeny wrongful-death suit against R.J. Reynolds (RJR).
- The Estate pleaded negligence, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, and conspiracy to commit fraudulent concealment based on long-running tobacco industry misrepresentations and omissions about addiction and health risks.
- The jury found for the Estate on negligence and strict liability, found a conspiracy among major tobacco companies, but declined to find RJR’s concealment was a legal cause of Price’s death on the fraudulent-concealment count.
- The jury awarded $6.4 million compensatory damages, allocating 60% fault to Price and 40% to RJR; it found punitive damages warranted but awarded none.
- At trial RJR sought a special jury instruction requiring proof that Price detrimentally relied on a specific false or misleading statement made in furtherance of the conspiracy; the court refused and gave a broader instruction that did not require reliance on a specific statement.
- The First DCA reversed, holding the refusal to give RJR’s proposed instruction was an abuse of discretion under existing precedent and that the erroneous instruction prejudiced RJR; because the issues were inextricably intertwined, the court ordered a new trial on multiple issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by refusing RJR’s proposed jury instruction requiring proof that Price detrimentally relied on a specific false statement for conspiracy to commit fraudulent concealment | Reliance can be proven by inference from pervasive industry conduct and marketing; no specific-statement requirement (per Martin/dissent) | Fraudulent-concealment/conspiracy requires proof that plaintiff relied to his detriment on a false or misleading statement by defendant; instruction should require such reliance | Court held refusal was an abuse of discretion; the requested instruction correctly stated the law and was necessary; reversal required |
| Whether the erroneous instruction was prejudicial and what relief is appropriate | Error limited to conspiracy instruction; negligence/strict-liability verdicts and damages should stand (retrial only on conspiracy) | Error prejudiced RJR; asked for new trial or reduction for comparative fault depending on relief sought | Court found the erroneous instruction could have misled the jury and the issues (negligence, conspiracy, comparative fault, damages, punitive) were inextricably intertwined; ordered new trial on those issues |
| Whether reliance may be inferred from general evidence of pervasive misleading advertising and industry conduct | Reliance may be inferred from circumstantial evidence of pervasive misleading advertising (Martin, dissent) | Recent panel precedent requires evidence supporting an inference of detrimental reliance on false statements (Whitmire/Jewett) | Majority applied Whitmire/Jewett: plaintiff must prove detrimental reliance (which can be inferential but requires evidentiary support); refusal to instruct on that element was error |
| Appellate scope: whether remand can be limited to single issue or must include related issues | Limited retrial on conspiracy sufficient; other verdicts unaffected | Broader retrial appropriate because liability and damages issues overlap | Court exercised discretion under §59.35 to order a new trial on multiple intertwined issues to avoid confusion and unfairness |
Key Cases Cited
- Engle v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (establishes Engle-progeny framework and findings regarding tobacco industry misrepresentations)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Whitmire, 260 So. 3d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (held fraudulent-concealment claim requires proof of detrimental reliance supported by evidence)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Jewett, 106 So. 3d 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (articulates standard for when a requested jury instruction must be given)
- Hess v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 175 So. 3d 687 (Fla. 2015) (reiterates that Engle-progeny plaintiffs must prove detrimental reliance for fraudulent concealment)
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin, 53 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (earlier panel concluding reliance can be inferred from pervasive misleading advertising)
- Florida Power & Light Co. v. McCollum, 140 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1962) (instructional error prejudicing jury may require reversal)
- Gasoline Prods. Co. v. Champlin Refining Co., 283 U.S. 494 (U.S. 1931) (doctrine that interrelated issues may require retrial of all intertwined issues)