Empire Healthchoice, Inc. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al.
A health insurer sued several tobacco companies under the New York Consumer Protection Act, seeking recovery of medical costs that resulted from the companies' alleged fraudulent misrepresentations of the health effects of smoking. The Second Circuit affirmed the trial court's opinion, holding that the plaintiff failed to assert a cognizable claim and directing the trial court to enter judgment for the defendants as to all claims.
Empire Healthchoice, Inc. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al., 393 F.3d 312 (2d Cir. 2004).
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.
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.
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 found that all defendants except British American Tobacco Company, Ltd., were liable under New York’s consumer protection statute, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349. It awarded Empire $17,782,426 on Empire’s direct claim under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349, and $11,829,784 on Empire’s subrogated claim to recover payments made on behalf of Empire’s insureds under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349. See Blue Cross & Blue Shield of N.J., Inc. v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 344 F.3d 211, 215 n.3 (2d Cir. 2003). Judgment was entered on both claims, but because the damages for the subrogated claim were subsumed within the damages for the direct claim, Empire’s recovery was limited to $17,782,426. Id. The District Court subsequently awarded attorneys’ fees to Empire, Blue Cross III, 190 F. Supp. 2d 407. In an opinion dated September 16, 2003, we reversed the District Court’s judgment on Empire’s subrogated claim. See Blue Cross, 344 F.3d at 217-18. We also found that Empire’s direct claim “will be actionable only if: (1) the claims are not considered too remote under Section 349, and (2) Section 349 does not require individualized proof of harm to subscribers.” Id. at 229. We then certified two questions to the New York Court of Appeals: 1. Are claims by a third party payer of health care costs seeking to recover costs of services provided to subscribers as a result of those subscribers being harmed by a defendant’s or defendants’ violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §349 too remote to permit suit under that statute? 2. If such an action is not too remote to permit suit, is individualized proof of harm to subscribers required when a third party payer of health care costs seeks to recover costs of services provided to subscribers as a result of those subscribers being harmed by a defendant’s or defendants’ violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349? Id. We reserved judgment on the award of attorneys’ fees, pending the outcome of the certification process. Id. at 228. The New York Court of Appeals accepted certification on October 30, 2003, see Blue Cross & Blue Shield of N.J., Inc. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 100 N.Y.2d 636 (2003), and has now rendered its decision, Blue Cross & Blue Shield of N.J., Inc. v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 3 N.Y.3d 200, 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 2440 (2004). It responded to the first question in the affirmative, thereby rendering the second question academic. Id. In an order entered on November 4, 2004, we requested supplemental briefing from the parties in light of the decision of the New York Court of Appeals. Pursuant to an unopposed request from appellants, we reverse the judgment of the District Court, including the award of attorneys’ fees, and remand the case to the District Court with instructions to enter judgment with prejudice in defendants’ favor on all of Empire’s claims."
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' alleged fraudulent misrepresentations of the health effects of smoking. The Second Circuit affirmed the trial court's opinion, holding that the plaintiff failed to assert a cognizable claim and directing the trial court to enter judgment for the defendants as to all claims.