In 1998, the tobacco companies and the state of Louisiana (among other states) entered into the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) in an action brought by states against the tobacco companies to recover costs for health care services provided to individuals suffering from tobacco-related illnesses. Under the MSA, the tobacco companies were to make annual payments to the state in exchange for the state waiving future healthcare cost recovery claims. Both sides agreed that the United States Federal Arbitration Act (Arbitration Act) would control should a dispute arise. The tobacco companies filed a motion to compel arbitration after an independent auditor did not apply an adjustment in the calculation of the annual payment to the state. The Court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the motion and compelled arbitration, assigning costs to the state, based on the broad scope of the arbitration provision and application of the Arbitration Act.
Ieyoub v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 982 So.2d 296, Louisiana Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (2008).
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 restricting any form of direct or indirect tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship.
(See FCTC Art. 13)
Substantive Issues
None
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.
"As explained by the United States Supreme Court in Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983), Section 2 creates a body of substantive law favoring arbitration and any doubt as to the scope of arbitrable issues must be resolved in favor of arbitration. See also La.R.S. 9:4201; Aguillard v. Auction Management Corp., 04-2804, 04-2857 (La.6/29/05), 908 So.2d 1. Accordingly, we find that the trial court erred in denying the motion to compel arbitration. We grant the motion, ordering that the issues of whether the Independent Auditor properly excluded the Non-Participating Manufacturer Adjustment from its calculation and whether the State diligently enforced its Qualifying Statute proceed to arbitration as anticipated by the Master Settlement Agreement."
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.
In 1998, the tobacco companies and the state of Louisiana (among other states) entered into the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) in an action brought by states against the tobacco companies to recover costs for health care services provided to individuals suffering from tobacco-related illnesses. Under the MSA, the tobacco companies were to make annual payments to the state in exchange for the state waiving future healthcare cost recovery claims. Both sides agreed that the United States Federal Arbitration Act (Arbitration Act) would control should a dispute arise. The tobacco companies filed a motion to compel arbitration after an independent auditor did not apply an adjustment in the calculation of the annual payment to the state. The Court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the motion and compelled arbitration, assigning costs to the state, based on the broad scope of the arbitration provision and application of the Arbitration Act.