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
Governments or insurance agencies may seek reimbursement from the tobacco companies for health care costs related to tobacco. The most famous example is the case brought by individual states in the U.S.A. that resulted in the Master Settlement Agreement.
Measures to regulate the marketing on tobacco packages. This includes both bans on false, misleading, deceptive packaging, as well as required health warnings on packaging.
(See FCTC Art. 11)
A violation of the right to procedural fairness. For example, a party may claim that a government agency did not consult with public or stakeholders when issuing regulations.
Any violation of a law designed to ensure fair trade, competition, or the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. For example, a government may require businesses to disclose detailed information about products—particularly in areas where safety or public health is an issue.
The court might consider procedural matters without touching the merits of the case. These might include: improper joinder, when third parties, such as Health NGOs or government officials, seek to become parties to the suit; lack of standing, where a plaintiff fails to meet the minimum requirements to bring suit; lack of personal jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction to rule over the defendant; or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction over the issue at suit.
A discussion on whether current scientific evidence is sufficient to justify the regulatory measures.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
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.