Products Liability Law Reporter

Manuel Garcia smoked Marlboro and Marlboro Lights cigarettes manufactured by Philip Morris USA Inc. He was diagnosed as having lung cancer and died approximately two years later. He is survived by his wife and son.

Garcia’s wife brought an Engle progeny suit against Philip Morris, alleging strict liability, fraud by concealment, conspiracy to commit fraud, and negligence.

The jury awarded $16 million, including $10 million in punitive damages. The court granted the defendant’s motion for judgment in accordance with its motion for directed verdict on the plaintiff’s claims for fraudulent concealment and conspiracy to commit fraud and entered an amended final judgment for $11.5 million, plus interest.

Citation: Garcia v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 2017-005523-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Miami-Dade Cnty. Sept. 12, 2024).

Plaintiff counsel: AAJ member Jonathan E. Freidin, Philip Freidin, Gabriel Mazzitelli, Kimberly Boldt, Robert Schack, and Sarah Glasser, all of Miami.

Comment: In Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Chadwell, 2024 WL 3049533 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. June 19, 2024), Brenda Chadwell, the widow of former smoker James Chadwell, sued Philip Morris USA Inc., alleging strict liability, negligence, fraudulent concealment, and conspiracy to fraudulently conceal. At trial, Philip Morris asked Brenda and other family members questions relating to James’s reliance on any statements or advertising from Philip Morris that influenced his decision to smoke cigarettes. The jury awarded $2.4 million. The defendant appealed, arguing that the plaintiff failed to present evidence that James had relied on any detrimental statement made by Philip Morris that concealed or omitted information and that the jury instruction on the fraud counts had been incorrect. Reversing in part, the appellate court noted that even where evidence is sufficient to establish that an Engle plaintiff received statements from a tobacco defendant that omitted material information, absent evidence that the smoker both believed and acted on those statements, the statements fail to establish reliance. Here, the court reasoned, although there was testimony that James had collected Marlboro Man items and smoked only Marlboro cigarettes, this testimony alone does not show that James had relied on a statement or misstatement by Philip Morris to his detriment. Simply receiving promotional products, without more, is not sufficient proof of detrimental reliance, the court said. Consequently, the court remanded in part for entry of judgment in Philip Morris’s favor on the plaintiff’s fraud and conspiracy claims.