Products Liability Law Reporter

A Florida appellate court held that the reliance on a particular statement is not part of the elements of fraudulent concealment in an Engle progeny case.

The daughter of former smoker Johnnie Chadwell sued Philip Morris, alleging that Chadwell was an Engle class member who had been addicted to the defendant’s cigarettes and that this led to his death from lung cancer. The plaintiff alleged strict liability, civil conspiracy to fraudulently conceal, and fraudulent concealment. After the jury’s verdict in the plaintiff’s favor, the court entered judgment for $2.4 million. The defendant appealed, arguing, in part, that the plaintiff had failed to present evidence that Chadwell had explicitly relied on Philip Morris’s detrimental statements, advertising, or omissions and that the jury instruction on the plaintiff’s fraud count as it related to reliance had been erroneous.

Affirming, the appellate court found that reliance on a particular statement is not part of the elements of fraudulent concealment in an Engle progeny case. The court found that reliance can be inferred here from the well-known “pervasive and misleading” advertising campaigns put forth by tobacco companies for years. The court added that Florida law allows an Engle jury to infer reliance based on evidence that a plaintiff had been exposed to this smoking disinformation campaign and held misapprehensions about smoking’s addictive properties and health effects.

Applying these principles, the court held that the trial court had not erred in sending the plaintiff’s fraudulent concealment claims to the jury. Moreover, the court held that the record contained sufficient evidence from which the jury could have concluded that Chadwell had relied on statements and omissions from the tobacco companies’ advertising campaign.

Citation: Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Chadwell, 2020 WL 2892407 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. June 3, 2020)

Plaintiff counsel: AAJ member Bard D. Rockenbach, West Palm Beach, Fla.; and William J. Wichmann, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., represented the plaintiff.