PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC. and R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY v. JACQUELINE MECHELLE BLACKWOOD, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF MARY ELNA COOPER

District Court of Appeal of Florida

PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC. and R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY v. JACQUELINE MECHELLE BLACKWOOD, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF MARY ELNA COOPER

235 So. 3d 934

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 10, 2018

Docket16-0897

StatusPublished

This text of 235 So. 3d 934 (PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC. and R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY v. JACQUELINE MECHELLE BLACKWOOD, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF MARY ELNA COOPER) 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

PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC. and R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY v. JACQUELINE MECHELLE BLACKWOOD, as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF MARY ELNA COOPER, 235 So. 3d 934 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this Engle 1 progeny case, Philip Morris USA, Inc. and R.J;. Reynolds Tobacco Company (“the defendants”) appeal a final judgment in favor of Mary Cooper (“the plaintiff”) and orders denying their various post-trial motions, and the appellee, the personal representative of the plaintiffs estate, cross-appeals the final judgment. The defendants raise two issues on which we affirm without further comment.

However, we agree with the plaintiff’s argument on cross-appeal that she should be permitted to seek punitive damages on her non-intentional tort counts. In the proceedings below, the trial court denied the plaintiffs motion to amend her complaint to seek punitive damages on her non-intentional tort claims based on Soffer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 106 So.3d 456, 459-61 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Ciccone, 123 So.3d 604, 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), which held that En-gle progeny plaintiffs are bound by the procedural posture of Engle and thus are not entitled to seek punitive damages on those counts. After the trial court’s determination, however, the Florida Supreme Court quashed those decisions and determined that Engle plaintiffs “are permitted to seek punitive damages on their claims for negligence and strict liability.” Soffer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 187 So.3d 1219, 1227 (Fla. 2016) (quoting Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Hallgren, 124 So.3d 350, 354 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)).

Consequently, we reverse and remand. On remand, the plaintiff is entitled to seek leave from the trial court to add claims for punitive damages on her negligence and strict liability counts. Should the proceedings progress to trial, the jury should address both entitlement and amount with respect to the new claims.

Reversed and remanded,

Ciklin, Klingensmith, JJ., and Belanger, Robert E., Associate Judge, concur.

1

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

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

Per Curiam.

In this Engle 1 progeny case, Philip Morris USA, Inc. and R.J;. Reynolds Tobacco Company (“the defendants”) appeal a final judgment in favor of Mary Cooper (“the plaintiff”) and orders denying their various post-trial motions, and the appellee, the personal representative of the plaintiffs estate, cross-appeals the final judgment. The defendants raise two issues on which we affirm without further comment.

However, we agree with the plaintiff’s argument on cross-appeal that she should be permitted to seek punitive damages on her non-intentional tort counts. In the proceedings below, the trial court denied the plaintiffs motion to amend her complaint to seek punitive damages on her non-intentional tort claims based on Soffer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 106 So.3d 456, 459-61 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Ciccone, 123 So.3d 604, 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), which held that En-gle progeny plaintiffs are bound by the procedural posture of Engle and thus are not entitled to seek punitive damages on those counts. After the trial court’s determination, however, the Florida Supreme Court quashed those decisions and determined that Engle plaintiffs “are permitted to seek punitive damages on their claims for negligence and strict liability.” Soffer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 187 So.3d 1219, 1227 (Fla. 2016) (quoting Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Hallgren, 124 So.3d 350, 354 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)).

Consequently, we reverse and remand. On remand, the plaintiff is entitled to seek leave from the trial court to add claims for punitive damages on her negligence and strict liability counts. Should the proceedings progress to trial, the jury should address both entitlement and amount with respect to the new claims.

Reversed and remanded,

Ciklin, Klingensmith, JJ., and Belanger, Robert E., Associate Judge, concur.

1

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 So. 3d 934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/philip-morris-usa-inc-and-rj-reynolds-tobacco-company-v-jacqueline-fladistctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack