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.
Liggett Group, Inc. v. Engle, 853 So.2d 434 (Fla. App., 2003)
United States
May 21, 2003
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
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.
Courts may sanction or reprimand parties for especially egregious behavior during court proceedings.
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.
"In conclusion, the entire judgment must be reversed and the class decertified. The class fails the requirements of predominance and superiority. Any initially imagined savings of judicial resources and expense, have been dispelled by the ensuing litigation and the overwhelming procedural problems inherent in the certification of this type of smokers' litigation. Those class members whose claims have not yet been tried, should be allowed to proceed individually.
Class certification in mass tort actions such as this has been historically disfavored by courts throughout the nation. This hesitancy to certify complex mass tort actions is based upon the evolving recognition that the class action mechanism is generally not superior for these types of cases, and results in a higher than normal risk of infringing upon the rights of defendants.
The present case presents a classic example of the inherent dangers that arise when a complex mass tort action is improperly certified. As discussed throughout this opinion, there are multiple sound legal bases why the result of this class action trial, including the punitive damages award, cannot be sustained.
The trial plan which produced the $145 billion dollar award, violates Florida law, violates this Court's 1996 certification decision, and is unconstitutional. The proceedings that produced the findings of entitlement and the $145 billion dollar award were irretrievably tainted by class counsel's misconduct, and the award is bankrupting under Florida law. The fate of an entire industry and of close to a million Florida residents, cannot rest upon such a fundamentally unfair proceeding. Our system of justice requires more. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment below with instructions to decertify the class."
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 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.