In 1998, states and participating tobacco manufacturers entered into an agreement known as the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA), which arose from states' actions against tobacco companies to recover costs spent on healthcare services provided to individuals suffering from tobacco-related illnesses, allegedly resulting from tobacco marketing, advertising and lobbying. A dispute arose whether the state had diligently fulfilled its obligations of enforcing statutes needed for the calculation of tobacco companies' annual payments to the state under the MSA. The tobacco companies filed a motion to compel arbitration of this dispute under the terms of the MSA. The trial court declared the arbitration appropriate, and the state appealed. The Court affirmed the trial court's ruling, finding that the MSA provided for arbitration of a diligent enforcement determination in a single, unitary proceeding involving all participants.
McGraw, et al. v. American Tobacco Co., 681 S.E.2d 96, Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia (2009).
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 tobacco industry may have perpetrated a fraud upon the public or the courts by presenting false information or deliberately hiding known-facts.
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.
"All courts addressing arguments identical to those posed by the State against the requirement of a single, nationwide arbitration of the diligent enforcement determination have consistently and logically rejected the same. Both the structure and plain meaning of the MSA require a uniform determination of this issue due to the impact the determination relevant to one settling state will have upon all other settling states. Efficiency, logic and the plain meaning of the terms and structure of the MSA lead to the inescapable conclusion that all challenges to a diligent enforcement determination under the MSA are subject to arbitration before a single, nationwide, panel of three former Article III judges. The reasoning and conclusions set forth in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County's order of March 20, 2007, order are both legally sound and correct. Rather than reiterate the well-reasoned analysis of this issue by the numerous authorities cited above and the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, we adopt the reasoning and logic set forth by those authorities and find that the circuit court did not err in ordering the question of the State's diligent enforcement of its qualifying statute be submitted to nationwide arbitration under the explicit terms of the MSA."
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, states and participating tobacco manufacturers entered into an agreement known as the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA), which arose from states' actions against tobacco companies to recover costs spent on healthcare services provided to individuals suffering from tobacco-related illnesses, allegedly resulting from tobacco marketing, advertising and lobbying. A dispute arose whether the state had diligently fulfilled its obligations of enforcing statutes needed for the calculation of tobacco companies' annual payments to the state under the MSA. The tobacco companies filed a motion to compel arbitration of this dispute under the terms of the MSA. The trial court declared the arbitration appropriate, and the state appealed. The Court affirmed the trial court's ruling, finding that the MSA provided for arbitration of a diligent enforcement determination in a single, unitary proceeding involving all participants.