R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC. v. DEBORAH NEFF, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF DOROTHY MILINKOVICH, 19-2646

Decedent was a long-time smoker who died of lung cancer in 1994; her daughter (Neff) sued R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris (wrongful death; various theories including strict liability, fraud, conspiracy).
Phase I evidence included addiction expert and a historian on industry concealment; plaintiff introduced modern cigarette advertisements (including 2013 Glamour ads).
Reynolds moved in limine to exclude the modern ads as protected commercial speech under the First Amendment; the trial court denied the motion, saying it was not a First Amendment issue.
During closing, plaintiff’s counsel made multiple objections-worthy remarks (quoting Orwell’s 1984 and Dr. King, calling the industry an “enterprise of death,” misstating concessions, urging punishment for harms to others, referencing absent corporate reps, and injecting personal opinion).
Jury awarded $4 million compensatory and $6 million punitive damages; defendants appealed and Neff cross-appealed the verdict form’s conspiracy questions.
The Fourth DCA reversed and remanded for a new trial based on cumulative improper closing arguments, provided guidance on First Amendment analysis for commercial ads, and ruled the conspiracy verdict form was improper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether closing arguments were so improper to require a new trial	Counsel’s rhetoric was permissible latitude and part of advocacy; comments were brief/contextual	Arguments were inflammatory, misstated evidence, violated limine rulings, and prejudiced defendants	Reversed and remanded: preserved and cumulative unpreserved errors rendered trial unfair; new trial required
Admissibility of modern commercial advertisements (First Amendment)	Ads are relevant to industry conduct/intent and admissible	Ads are protected commercial speech; trial court must apply First Amendment test	Court did not decide merits (reversal on other grounds) but held trial court erred by not applying Central Hudson on retrial
Verdict form requiring separate conspiracy findings for each defendant	Conspiracy is collective; if a conspiratorial scheme harmed plaintiff, all co‑conspirators liable	Separate findings avoid attributing joint liability without specific proof against each defendant	Reversed: form could mislead; jury should not be asked that separate-conspiracy question as worded on retrial
Trial court’s management of contemporaneous objections and cure (mistrial/curative instruction)	Trial court’s rulings and curative instructions were adequate	Trial court abused discretion in overruling/sustaining without effective cures given pervasive argument	Court found abuse of discretion in multiple overrulings and insufficient cures given cumulative prejudice

Engle v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (supreme court condemnation of inflammatory closing argument; foundation for Engle-related tobacco litigation)
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Calloway, 201 So. 3d 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (prior Fourth DCA decision reversing for cumulative improper argument; precedent relied on here)
Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 549 U.S. 346 (U.S. 2007) (limits punitive damages based on harms to nonparties)
Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557 (U.S. 1980) (test for when government may regulate commercial speech)
Murphy v. Int’l Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 2000) (standards limiting closing argument and harmless-error review)
Special v. W. Boca Med. Ctr., 160 So. 3d 1251 (Fla. 2014) (harmless error standard: beneficiary of error must show no reasonable possibility the error contributed to verdict)
Companioni v. City of Tampa, 51 So. 3d 452 (Fla. 2010) (preservation rules: if objection sustained, request for mistrial/curative instruction required to preserve appellate review)
Gianos v. Baum, 941 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (abuse-of-discretion review of closing-argument rulings)