Products Liability Law Reporter

A Florida appellate court held that no punitive damages retrial was warranted where a trial court had allowed R.J. Reynolds to introduce as mitigation evidence amounts it had paid to states under tobacco-litigation settlement agreements.

Teresa Blundell brought an Engle-progeny lawsuit against R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris USA, Inc., on behalf of her mother’s estate. The jury awarded $500,000 in compensatory damages. At a subsequent punitive damages trial, R.J. Reynolds introduced testimony referring to its having paid approximately $61 billion under the Florida Settlement Agreement and the Master Settlement Agreement since 1998. The jury then determined that punitive damages were not warranted. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion for new trial.

Affirming, the appellate court noted that under Florida law, punitive damages may be awarded in civil actions to punish wrongdoers and deter them from committing future bad acts. The court added that a jury is free to award no punitive damages in a case, or to award an amount sufficient to punish and deter. Moreover, the court said, a defendant in a punitive damages trial may present any mitigating circumstance relevant to the issue of whether punishment or deterrence is warranted.

The court determined that allowing evidence regarding R.J. Reynolds’s settlements was both relevant and admissible. R.J. Reynolds’s mitigation evidence concerned the billions of dollars it has paid to settle state litigation and also the measures it has taken to inform the public about the dangers of smoking and the benefits of quitting, the court said. Additionally, the court said that R.J. Reynolds has disclosed its product ingredients, made efforts to develop less harmful cigarettes and tobacco products, and disclosed internal company documents. The payouts made under the settlement agreements implicate R.J. Reynolds’s attitude and conduct in response to the Engle claims brought against it, the court concluded, adding that R.J. Reynolds could properly argue that it has suffered a stiff punishment and is effectively deterred.

Noting that principles of due process prevent it from prohibiting R.J. Reynolds from making an available defense, the court concluded that it was proper for the trial court to allow the mitigation evidence and to allow R.J. Reynolds to refer to these payments as punishment.

Citation: Blundell v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 2021 WL 3074312 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. July 21, 2021).