Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Barbose

228 So. 3d 702, 2017 WL 4699238

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: October 20, 2017
• Docket: Case 2D16-619
• Status: Published

Opinion

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for a written opinion/citation filed on August 2i, 2017,

IT IS ORDERED that Appellant’s motion for a written opinion is granted. The decision dated August 18, 2017, is withdrawn and the attached opinion is substituted therefor. Appellee’s opposition to Appellant’s motion is noted. Appellant’s motion for leave to file a reply?-is denied as moot.

No further motions for-rehearing will be entertained in this appeal. .

Attachment

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., Appellant,

v.

PHYLLIS BARBOSE, Personal Representative of the Estate of John Barbóse, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-619

Opinion filed October 20,2017.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; James R. Stearns, Judge.

Geoffrey J. Michael of Arnold & Porter LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.

George A, Vaka of Vaka Law Group, Tampa; Brent R. Bigger of Knopf Bigger, Tampa; Hendrik Uiterwyk, Paul E. Berg, Andrew Bennett, and Anna Frederiksen-Cherry of Abrahamson & Uiterwyk, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We find no merit in the issues raised in this appeal and affirm the judgment below accordingly. With respect to Philip Morris USA Inc.’s. comparative fault argument (raised at § V. B. of Philip Morris USA Inc.’s initial brief), we affirm based on our decision in Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Boatright, 217 So.3d 166 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), and once again certify conflict with R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Grossman, 211 So.3d 221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Calloway, 201 So.3d 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016), and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Schoeff, 178 So.3d 487 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

KHOUZAM and LUCAS, JJ„ and CAR'ROLL, HUNTER W., Associate Judge, Concur.