Frost v. LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Frost v. LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY

85 So. 3d 1209, 2012 WL 1440428, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6593

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 27, 2012

Docket5D10-2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 85 So. 3d 1209 (Frost v. LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frost v. LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY, 85 So. 3d 1209, 2012 WL 1440428, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6593 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We grant Appellant’s motion for rehearing, withdraw our earlier opinion, and substitute the following opinion in its place.

Appellant challenges the summary judgment in favor of Lorillard Tobacco Company, Vector Group, Ltd., Inc., and Liggett Group, LLC (collectively “Appellees”) in this Engle 1 -progeny case. Appellant argues that: (1) summary judgment was premature; (2) summary judgment was improper because Appellees did not prove the absence of fact issues; and (3) summary judgment was improper as to the civil conspiracy count. We affirm the trial court’s summary judgment on all counts, except the civil conspiracy count. As to that count, we adopt the well-reasoned opinion of our sister court in Rey v. Philip Morris, Inc., 75 So.3d 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). 2

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

GRIFFIN, TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

1

. Engle v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla.2006).

2

. At oral argument, counsel alerted this Court that Vector Group, Ltd., had not been a defendant in Engle and might have other defenses not yet addressed below. For clarity, our decision today only addresses issues that were properly before us.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We grant Appellant’s motion for rehearing, withdraw our earlier opinion, and substitute the following opinion in its place.

Appellant challenges the summary judgment in favor of Lorillard Tobacco Company, Vector Group, Ltd., Inc., and Liggett Group, LLC (collectively “Appellees”) in this Engle 1 -progeny case. Appellant argues that: (1) summary judgment was premature; (2) summary judgment was improper because Appellees did not prove the absence of fact issues; and (3) summary judgment was improper as to the civil conspiracy count. We affirm the trial court’s summary judgment on all counts, except the civil conspiracy count. As to that count, we adopt the well-reasoned opinion of our sister court in Rey v. Philip Morris, Inc., 75 So.3d 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). 2

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

GRIFFIN, TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

1

. Engle v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla.2006).

2

. At oral argument, counsel alerted this Court that Vector Group, Ltd., had not been a defendant in Engle and might have other defenses not yet addressed below. For clarity, our decision today only addresses issues that were properly before us.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 So. 3d 1209, 2012 WL 1440428, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frost-v-lorillard-tobacco-company-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack