Products Liability Law Reporter

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that a former smoker was not an Engle class member whose estate was entitled to the benefit of the Engle Phase I jury’s liability findings.

Gerald Harris was a lifelong smoker and suffered from heart disease as well as cancer of the oral cavity, lung, and vocal cords. After his death in 2012, his wife, Patricia Harris, brought an Engle progeny suit against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Philip Morris, and several other tobacco companies. The plaintiff sought to establish her claims by relying on the Engle Phase I findings and argued that her late husband was an Engle class member based on his heart disease and oral cavity cancer.

The jury found that the heart disease did not result from cigarette addiction and concluded that the oral cavity cancer was caused by cigarette addiction but did not manifest before the Nov. 21, 1996, Engle class cut-off date. The jury awarded approximately $1.7 million.

R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris moved for judgment, arguing that Gerald Harris was not an Engle class member and, therefore, there was no basis for the finding that the defendants had engaged in tortious conduct. The district court denied the defendants’ motion and entered judgment for the plaintiff. The court concluded that in combination, Harris’s heart disease and oral cavity cancer met the Engle class definition. The defendants filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and a motion for new trial. The district court denied both motions.

Reversing, the Eleventh Circuit found that Florida courts give preclusive effect to the Engle Phase I findings where a plaintiff was a member of the Engle class, which comprises Florida residents who suffered from a medical condition that was both caused by cigarette addiction and manifested before Nov. 21, 1996. Here, the court said, the jury found that Gerald Harris, a Florida resident, did not meet both of these requirements. It determined that his heart disease, which manifested before the cut-off date, did not result from his cigarette addiction and that his oral cancer, while caused by his cigarette addiction, did not manifest before the cut-off date.

The court disagreed with the district court’s conclusion that Harris was an Engle class member based on the Florida Supreme Court’s treatment of class representative Angie Della Vecchia in its original Engle decision. The court reasoned that Della Vecchia had at least one medical condition that met both Engle class requirements, including COPD, which the court called “tobacco-related.” Here, the court said, Harris had no medical condition that was both caused by cigarette addiction and manifested before the cut-off date.

Thus, the court found that without the preclusive effect of the Phase I findings, the plaintiff had failed to prove the essential elements of her claims and therefore failed to prove the defendants had acted tortiously by making defective products. Consequently, the court concluded that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Citation: Harris v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 2020 WL 6816965 (11th Cir. Nov. 20, 2020).

Comment: In R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Bessent-Dixon, 2021 WL 139770 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jan. 15, 2021), R.J. Reynolds appealed a trial court’s final judgment awarding compensatory and punitive damages in an Engle progeny case. The appellate court reversed and granted a new trial. The court found that the trial court had erred in failing to instruct the jury that to prove the intentional tort of conspiracy to fraudulently conceal information, the plaintiff was required to prove that the decedent had relied to his detriment on R.J. Reynolds’s false statement. Notwithstanding the Engle findings, the court said, plaintiffs asserting fraudulent concealment must prove that they had relied to their detriment on tobacco companies’ false statements. The incorrect instruction here allowed the plaintiff to argue that the defendant was liable for an intentional tort where no evidence was presented that the plaintiff’s decedent had relied on false information, the court said.