Robert Miller, etc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company

Opinion

Supreme Court of Florida WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2022

CASE NO.: SC21-1596 Lower Tribunal No(s).:

1D20-467; 162008CA000401LXXXMA

ROBERT MILLER, ETC. vs. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY

Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)

Upon review of the response to this Court’s order to show cause dated May 18, 2022, and the reply, the Court has determined that it should decline to accept jurisdiction in this case. See Prentice v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 338 So. 3d 831 (Fla. 2022). The petition for discretionary review is, therefore, denied.

No motion for rehearing will be entertained by the Court. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.330(d)(2).

MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, POLSTON, COURIEL, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur. LABARGA, J., concurs in result only with an opinion. FRANCIS, J., did not participate.

LABARGA, J., concurring in result only.

Because I strongly believe that proof of fraudulent concealment

in an Engle-progeny case does not require proof of reliance on a

specific statement by an Engle defendant, I dissented to this Court’s

holding in Prentice v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 338 So. 3d 831 (Fla.

2022).

CASE NO.: SC21-1596 Page Two

In this case, I recognize, as does the petitioner, that this

Court’s holding in Prentice is controlling. However, I reaffirm my

dissent in Prentice, and I concur in result only to the extent that

Prentice requires this result.

A True Copy Test:

ks Served:

TROY A. FUHRMAN JASON T. BURNETTE KEVIN P. RIDDLES DAVID C. REEVES ANGELO M. PATACCA COURTNEY BREWER SIMON HANSEN JOHN W. HOGAN JACQUELINE M. PASEK JONATHAN A. MARTIN BAILEY HOWARD EMILY C. BAKER MARIE A. BORLAND PAUL R. REICHERT JOHN S. MILLS RICHARD J. LANTINBERG A. JAY PLOTKIN NORWOOD SHERMAN WILNER HON. KRISTINA SAMUELS, CLERK HON. KATIE L. DEARING, JUDGE HON. JODY PHILLIPS, CLERK