Stay Informed

Sign up for news & alerts

Already signed up?
Login here
What Can I Do?


Get Help
Need alcohol or drug help for yourself or someone else? GET HELP
Continuing Education
Free online courses for addiction counselors LEARN ONLINE
Resources
Resources
Find useful publications, online documents & more.


DrugScreening.org


 

Huge Fla. Tobacco Award Rejected as 'Excessive'
July 7, 2006

Share Share Email
Email
Print
Print
SubscribeSubscribe
News Summary

The Florida Supreme Court handed a big victory to the tobacco industry this week, ruling that a $145-billion punitive-damages award in a class-action suit from sick smokers was excessive and that lower courts erred in certifying the case, the Associated Press reported July 6.

"We unanimously conclude that the punitive damages award is excessive as a matter of law," the high court ruled in upholding an appellate court's ruling in the so-called Engle case. Tobacco-company stocks immediately rose on news of the decision.

A Florida jury hit the nation's leading tobacco companies with the damages award in 2000 after finding in favor of the class of up to 700,000 Florida smokers who said the industry intentionally misled the public about the dangers of smoking. But the courts later agreed with the industry's contention that each smoker should have been required to file a separate lawsuit.

The Florida Supreme Court did reinstate a $2.85-million damages award to smoker Mary Farnan and a $4.023-million award to Angie Della Vecchia, both named parties to the class-action suit. However, a $5.8-million award to smoker Frank Amodeo was not restored because the court said the case fell outside of the statute of limitations.

The original jury decision had assessed $74 billion in punitive damages against Philip Morris, $36 billion against R.J. Reynolds, $17.5 billion against Brown and Williamson, $16.25 against Lorillard, and $790 million against Liggett Group. The case started out as a nationwide class action, but was later limited to Florida smokers by the courts. Then, the 3rd District Court of Appeal decided that it did not meet the criteria for a class action at all. 

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

SUBMIT A COMMENT:

Note: Comments are now held for moderator approval. More info

Name:

Comment:
(limit 250
words)

Enter this word
(help):
Change

GUIDELINES: 
Please keep comments on-topic, courteous, clean, non-commercial, and within the word limit.
Read the complete guidelines