The tobacco companies challenged the calculation of their payments due under the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) to the State of Connecticut. The companies sought to decrease their payments based on an adjustment contained in the MSA, while Connecticut argued there was an exception to the adjustment which applied to the state, requiring full payment. In this matter, Connecticut sought to enforce the exception through state courts and the companies, relying on the MSA, argued that arbitration was the proper forum for settlement of their calculation dispute. Agreeing with the trial court, which granted the pretrial motion to compel arbitration, the appellate court found the plain language of the MSA dictated arbitration of the payment calculation dispute.
State of Connecticut v. Philip Morris, 959 A.2d 997 (Conn. 2008)
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"As we have explained previously herein, § IX (d)(2)(B) of the agreement provides that a state can avoid the application of the nonparticipating manufacturer adjustment if it has enacted a qualifying statute that is in full force and effect during the calendar year and the state diligently has enforced the statute during the calendar year. Accordingly, the determination of whether a state has diligently enforced its State v. Philip Morris, Inc., 959 A.2d 997, 289 Conn. 633 (Conn., 2008) qualifying statute is central to the independent auditor's determination of whether to apply the nonparticipating manufacturer adjustment because diligent enforcement precludes the application of the adjustment. We conclude, therefore, that the determination of whether a state has diligently enforced its qualifying statute arises out of or relates to the independent auditor's calculations and determinations, including the application of an adjustment, in this case, the nonparticipating manufacturer adjustment. The present dispute between the parties therefore is subject to arbitration under the agreement."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
The tobacco companies challenged the calculation of their payments due under the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) to the State of Connecticut. The companies sought to decrease their payments based on an adjustment contained in the MSA, while Connecticut argued there was an exception to the adjustment which applied to the state, requiring full payment. In this matter, Connecticut sought to enforce the exception through state courts and the companies, relying on the MSA, argued that arbitration was the proper forum for settlement of their calculation dispute. Agreeing with the trial court, which granted the pretrial motion to compel arbitration, the appellate court found the plain language of the MSA dictated arbitration of the payment calculation dispute.