In 1994, a class-action suit was brought in Florida against most U.S. tobacco companies on the basis of numerous tort claims seeking compensatory and punitive damages for injuries caused by smoking. After lengthy trial and appellate proceedings, the Supreme Court of Florida was asked to review a judgment by the intermediate appellate court which reversed a $145 billion punitive damages award for the class and a $12.7 million compensatory award for the three individual class representatives. The court disapproved of the reasoning that the punitive damage award was barred by the earlier settlement agreement entered into by the State of Florida with the tobacco industry, and instead vacated the award because it was excessive as a matter of law. The court upheld two of the three compensatory awards but found the third was barred by the statute of limitations. The court further held that while much of the findings of the trial phase could stand, the remaining issues were highly individualized and required an order de-certifying the class. The court thus remanded the case and required individuals to pursue separate claims for compensation.
An individual or organization may seek civil damages against a tobacco company based on the claim that the use of tobacco products causes disease or death. Some of these cases will relate to general tobacco products, while others will relate to specific subcategories of tobacco products--for example, light or low products, menthol or other flavored products. Additionally, there may be cases relating to exposure to secondhand smoke.
Any violation of a law designed to ensure fair trade, competition, or the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. For example, a government may require businesses to disclose detailed information about products—particularly in areas where safety or public health is an issue.
The court might consider procedural matters without touching the merits of the case. These might include: improper joinder, when third parties, such as Health NGOs or government officials, seek to become parties to the suit; lack of standing, where a plaintiff fails to meet the minimum requirements to bring suit; lack of personal jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction to rule over the defendant; or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction over the issue at suit.
In 1994, a class-action suit was brought in Florida against most U.S. tobacco companies on the basis of numerous tort claims seeking compensatory and punitive damages for injuries caused by smoking. After lengthy trial and appellate proceedings, the Supreme Court of Florida was asked to review a judgment by the intermediate appellate court which reversed a $145 billion punitive damages award for the class and a $12.7 million compensatory award for the three individual class representatives. The court disapproved of the reasoning that the punitive damage award was barred by the earlier settlement agreement entered into by the State of Florida with the tobacco industry, and instead vacated the award because it was excessive as a matter of law. The court upheld two of the three compensatory awards but found the third was barred by the statute of limitations. The court further held that while much of the findings of the trial phase could stand, the remaining issues were highly individualized and required an order de-certifying the class. The court thus remanded the case and required individuals to pursue separate claims for compensation.