In 1994, a class-action suit was brought in Florida against most U.S. tobacco companies on the basis of numerous tort claims seeking compensatory and punitive damages for injuries caused by smoking. After lengthy proceedings, a $145 billion punitive damages award for the class and a $12.7 million compensatory award for the three individual class representatives were given by the trial court. This is the District Court of Appeal’s review and reversal of that award.
The appellate court held the class was improperly certified as a class because the plaintiffs lacked the necessary preponderance of commonality between their claims. Additionally, the court held because of important differences in the claims, the class action procedure was not the superior procedure. The court reversed the punitive award, holding that it was excessive as a matter of state and federal law; it was a result of improper inflammatory arguments by plaintiffs’ counsel; and it was barred by the State of Florida’s settlement with the tobacco industry regarding similar litigation. The court failed to analyze the compensatory awards but reversed the entire decision and remanded it to be de-certified, forcing all plaintiffs to address their claims individually.
An individual or organization may seek civil damages against a tobacco company based on the claim that the use of tobacco products causes disease or death. Some of these cases will relate to general tobacco products, while others will relate to specific subcategories of tobacco products--for example, light or low products, menthol or other flavored products. Additionally, there may be cases relating to exposure to secondhand smoke.
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.
In 1994, a class-action suit was brought in Florida against most U.S. tobacco companies on the basis of numerous tort claims seeking compensatory and punitive damages for injuries caused by smoking. After lengthy proceedings, a $145 billion punitive damages award for the class and a $12.7 million compensatory award for the three individual class representatives were given by the trial court. This is the District Court of Appeal’s review and reversal of that award.
The appellate court held the class was improperly certified as a class because the plaintiffs lacked the necessary preponderance of commonality between their claims. Additionally, the court held because of important differences in the claims, the class action procedure was not the superior procedure. The court reversed the punitive award, holding that it was excessive as a matter of state and federal law; it was a result of improper inflammatory arguments by plaintiffs’ counsel; and it was barred by the State of Florida’s settlement with the tobacco industry regarding similar litigation. The court failed to analyze the compensatory awards but reversed the entire decision and remanded it to be de-certified, forcing all plaintiffs to address their claims individually.