Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Jersey v. Philip Morris, Inc.
A health insurer sued several tobacco companies under the New York Consumer Protection Act, seeking recovery of medical costs that resulted from the companies' fraudulent misrepresentations of the health effects of smoking. Following a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the defendants moved for a dismissal as a matter of law on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to prove a cause of action. The Court denied the motion, holding that sufficient evidence existed to support the jury's determination that the defendants had deliberately misled the public about the health effects of smoking and that the higher healthcare costs paid by the plaintiff were a foreseeable and direct result of defendants' actions. Furthermore, the Court found that the defendants' due process rights and rights to a jury trial were not violated by plaintiff's utilization of broad-based statistical evidence to prove causation and damages.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Jersey, Inc., et al. v. Philip Morris, Incorporated, et al., 178 F. Supp. 2d 198 (E.D.N.Y. 2001).
United States
Oct 19, 2001
United States District Court, Eastern District of New York
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"The jury could reasonably conclude that defendants misled the public about the actual benefits of light, low tar and filtered cigarettes as actually smoked. The trial record showed that defendants knew that low tar cigarettes did not deliver any significant health benefits. See generally Part IV B & C supra. Evidence also supported the conclusion that defendants were highly informed and deliberately exploited this deceptive phenomenon. Id. The evidence demonstrated that defendants promoted low-tar cigarettes while knowing there was no significant health benefits or that any benefit was far less then the defendants led the public to believe. Id. The evidence also proved that these practices were designed to intercept quitters."
"Here, plaintiff adduced sufficient evidence for a jury to find that defendants engaged in a successful scheme to distort the body of public knowledge; that they did so knowing the public, including plaintiff's members, would act upon defendants' statements and omissions; with the foreseeable result that plaintiff and other third-party payors would and did absorb the costs of increased medical services due to smoking resulting from defendants' actionable fraud. The evidence requires denial of defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law if section 349 supports the verdict."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
A health insurer sued several tobacco companies under the New York Consumer Protection Act, seeking recovery of medical costs that resulted from the companies' fraudulent misrepresentations of the health effects of smoking. Following a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the defendants moved for a dismissal as a matter of law on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to prove a cause of action. The Court denied the motion, holding that sufficient evidence existed to support the jury's determination that the defendants had deliberately misled the public about the health effects of smoking and that the higher healthcare costs paid by the plaintiff were a foreseeable and direct result of defendants' actions. Furthermore, the Court found that the defendants' due process rights and rights to a jury trial were not violated by plaintiff's utilization of broad-based statistical evidence to prove causation and damages.