After several named tobacco companies agreed to pay a class of non-smoking flight attendants for injuries suffered as a result of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke aboard Trans World Airlines flights, one plaintiff, Lynn French, refused the amount offered to her as settlement from Lorillard Tobacco Co. and sought a jury verdict instead. A jury eventually awarded French $5.5 million, and she subsequently filed a motion to receive compensation for her attorney fees and the costs she incurred after the judgment was made, along with the prejudgment interest on those costs. The Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County awarded French the costs. When the Tobacco company appealed, the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, affirmed that French was entitled to the award of attorney's fees and costs, and moreover, that the prejudgment interest was available to her as of the time she received a jury judgment that was substantially higher than the tobacco company's settlement offer.
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. French, 12 So.3d 786, District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District (2009).
United States
May 6, 2009
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Some jurisdictions allow an individual or organization to initiate an action against another private party who is not following a particular law. For example, a person may sue a restaurant that allows smoking despite a smoke free law. If the plaintiff is claiming the violation of the law caused physical harm, this may also be a personal injury case.
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.
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 language in the rule and statute on settlement offers is clear that when the qualifying conditions have occurred ((1) a written offer has been made in accordance with Rule 1.442 and "an applicable Florida law", and (2) in the case of a plaintiff that is an offeror under section 768.79, the plaintiff "recovers a judgment in an amount at least 25 percent greater than the offer"), then the offeror is "entitled" to the award of attorney's fees and costs. Rule 1.442(h)(1) merely grants a trial court the discretion to disallow such an award if it determines that "a proposal was not made in good faith." The use of the word "disallow" again connotes that the entitlement vests when the qualifying conditions have occurred. In this case, the qualifying conditions occurred in 2002. The years of further pleadings and arguments about the validity, sufficiency, or good faith of the offer and offeror did not result in any finding of "disentitlement" or "disapproval." If trial courts defer the accrual date for prejudgment interest until the date any issues pertaining to the validity or good faith of the offer are determined, that will incent the offerees/obligors to delay the day of resolution. Such a result is clearly contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the rule and the statute invoked in this case."
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.
After several named tobacco companies agreed to pay a class of non-smoking flight attendants for injuries suffered as a result of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke aboard Trans World Airlines flights, one plaintiff, Lynn French, refused the amount offered to her as settlement from Lorillard Tobacco Co. and sought a jury verdict instead. A jury eventually awarded French $5.5 million, and she subsequently filed a motion to receive compensation for her attorney fees and the costs she incurred after the judgment was made, along with the prejudgment interest on those costs. The Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County awarded French the costs. When the Tobacco company appealed, the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, affirmed that French was entitled to the award of attorney's fees and costs, and moreover, that the prejudgment interest was available to her as of the time she received a jury judgment that was substantially higher than the tobacco company's settlement offer.