Products Liability Law Reporter

A Florida appellate court held that an Engle plaintiff had established evidence from which a jury could have properly inferred that her late father had relied to his detriment on the defendant’s advertising statements, which allegedly were made as part of a wider conspiracy by tobacco companies to market filtered, low-tar cigarette brands.

Sabrina Cuddihee, on behalf of the estate of her late father, Gil Cuddihee, brought an Engle progeny suit against Philip Morris USA Inc. The jury found that the defendant had conspired to conceal or omit material information about the risks or addictive nature of cigarette smoking and that this had led to Gil’s death. The defendant appealed the trial court’s denial of its motion for a directed verdict, arguing that the plaintiff had failed to prove that her late father had detrimentally relied on any health-related statements made in furtherance of a conspiracy.
Affirming, the appellate court noted that to prevail on a concealment or concealment-conspiracy claim, an Engle plaintiff must prove reliance on a statement made by an Engle defendant or co-conspirator that concealed or omitted material information about cigarette smoking’s health effects or addictiveness.

Citing case law, the court added that tobacco defendants may be held liable for concealing or conspiring to conceal the health dangers of tobacco products where direct or circumstantial evidence connects a decedent’s smoking to the dissemination of false information. A smoker must have received, believed, and acted on a defendant’s misrepresentation, the court said.

The court found that the evidence on detrimental reliance connects statements made by the defendant with Gil’s decision to switch to a low-tar, purportedly less addictive, brand of cigarettes. Family members testified that Gil had switched to low-tar cigarettes after developing a cough and discovering what he believed was a more healthful cigarette choice, the court noted, adding that Gil’s daughter had also identified tobacco advertisements as the source of information prompting her father’s switch to low-tar cigarettes.

Moreover, the court said, Gil had been on the defendant’s mailing list, signed up for its promotions, and smoked a cigarette brand with packaging highlighting its filtered and low-tar features. Therefore, the court concluded that a jury could have properly inferred that Gil had relied to his detriment on the defendant’s advertising statements as part of a wider conspiracy by tobacco companies to market filtered, low-tar brands that concealed or omitted material information concerning the health effects of cigarettes.

Citation: Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Cuddihee, 2022 WL 1400999 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. May 4, 2022).

Plaintiff counsel: Richard J. Lantinberg and A. Jay Plotkin, both of Jacksonville, Fla.; and AAJ members Celene H. Humphries and Thomas J. Seider, both of Tampa, Fla.

Comment: In Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Rintoul, 2022 WL 1482413 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. May 11, 2022), Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds appealed a final judgment in favor of Bryan Rintoul, the personal representative of the estate of Edward Caprio. Rintoul, as Caprio’s surviving spouse, was awarded compensatory and punitive damages in an Engle progeny wrongful death suit.

Ordering a new trial, the appellate court reversed the punitive damages award; concluded that admission of substantial evidence regarding JUUL Labs, Inc., and e-cigarettes to support the plaintiff’s damages claim was harmful error; and held that Rintoul was not entitled to recover noneconomic damages because he was not married to Caprio when the symptoms of his tobacco-related illness manifested. The court also rejected the trial court’s creation of an exception for same-sex couples.