The Florida Supreme Court last week ratched up the burden of proof for a category of plaintiffs who are suing tobacco companies over smoking-related health problems.
In a 6-1 opinion that tried to clarify jury instructions in so-called “Engle progeny” cases, the justices held that to prevail in such litigation, plaintiffs must prove that they relied on misleading tobacco ads or statements for their decisions to continue their habit. In some cases, courts had concluded that such reliance can simply be inferred from misleading ad campaigns.
“Engle progeny” cases emerged more than a decade ago from a disbanded class-action lawsuit covering thousands of tobacco users. In disbanding that class, Florida’s high court required individual plaintiffs to file separate legal claims against tobacco companies to seek compensation, but the plaintiffs were allowed to rely on a presumption that the companies had concealed information on the health effects of cigarette addiction.
“We hold that an Engle progeny plaintiff must prove reliance on a statement that was made by an Engle defendant (for a concealment claim) or co-conspirator (for a conspiracy claim) and that concealed or omitted material information about health effects or addictiveness of smoking cigarettes,” the justices said in the March 17 decision.
Engle damages awards frequently provide plaintiffs or their family members with multimillion-dollar judgments.
Legal minds differ on the impact of last week’s Supreme Court ruling. In his dissent, Justice Jorge Labarga termed the opinion a fundamental shift in jurisprudence.
“Today’s decision by the majority disturbs decades of settled law regarding Engle progeny litigation and injects uncertainty into the remaining Engle progeny cases,” Labarga said.
But Coral Gables attorney Richard Diaz, who has represented Engle plaintiffs who won judgments, said the opinion may not be as significant as some observers contend.
“Generally speaking, what this opinion means is that if you have no actual reliance in the case in terms of fraud counts – your intentional tort counts, your conspiratorial and your substantive fraud counts – you're out of gas, you're done," Diaz told the Florida Record.
But he added that such cases could still be tried as negligence cases, product liability cases or breach-of-warranty cases and lead to significant damages awards.
“The opinion has been interpreted in two different ways by different appellate lawyers that I have spoken to since,” Diaz said. “Some say that this case makes it pretty clear that inferred reliance is no longer available to plaintiffs. Others say you … need a little more than inferred reliance.”
The extent of the proof needed to determine that plaintiffs relied on tobacco company statements to ignore the addictiveness and health dangers of smoking will be determined by future appeals, he said.