Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Jersey v. Philip Morris, Inc.

A health care provider and insurer brought an action against several major tobacco manufacturers for fraud under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). In particular, plaintiffs claimed that the defendant tobacco companies' denial that smoking caused disease led to an increase in the health care costs of the plaintiffs' subscribers, and ultimately, of the plaintiffs themselves. The plaintiffs therefore sought recovery of their healthcare expenditures. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs did not suffer economic harm because they "passed on" higher costs to their subscribers in the form of higher premiums. The plaintiffs requested that the Court exclude such evidence as unrelated to RICO actions. The Court found that the plaintiffs could seek recovery of health care costs and that the evidence related to "[passing] on" costs was appropriate to examine. 

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Jersey, Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 138 F.Supp.2d 357 (E.D.N.Y. 2001).

  • United States
  • Apr 30, 2001
  • United States District Court, Eastern District of New York

Parties

Plaintiff Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Jersey, Inc.

Defendant

  • BAT Industries P.L.C.
  • British American Tobacco (Investments) Limited
  • Brooke Group Ltd.
  • Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation
  • Council for Tobacco Research - USA, Inc.
  • Hill & Knowlton, Inc.
  • Liggest & Myers, Inc.
  • Liggest Group Inc.
  • Lorillard Tobacco Company
  • Lorillard, Inc.
  • Philip Morris Incorporated
  • R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
  • RJR Nabisco, Inc.
  • Smokeless Tobacco Council, Inc.
  • The Tobacco Institute, Inc.

Legislation Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

None

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"This is a difficult and significant case. It will last forty to fifty trial days with scores of expert and lay witnesses, many statistical studies, and thousands of documents. Each juror, despite an exhaustive voir dire by questionnaire and oral examination to eliminate those with prejudicial preconceptions, will have some pretrial view on health care, insurance, and the tobacco industry. Inevitably, some will entertain views that the insurance companies are able to recoup their costs through increasing premiums — and, in turn, this information may skew calculations of liability and damages. Although outside the traditional scope of relevancy, admitting evidence of pass on in the form of higher premiums and pass back through future lower premiums to dispel them as factors to be considered during deliberation is likely to have the positive effect of ensuring that the jury makes lawful findings, without conscious or unconscious formulations distorting the verdict. A charge on their irrelevance in deciding damages will be given. Having observed this responsible and dedicated jury during selection and over some fifteen trial days, the court is convinced that in this case the benefits of the proposed course outweigh its risks."