Xxxxxxxx Tobacco Co. and the related Xxxxx Progeny cases; and the case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, referred to as RICO. In 2000, a jury in Xxxxx x. Xxxxxxx Group, a class action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers by Florida smokers allegedly harmed by their addiction to nicotine, rendered a $145 billion punitive damages verdict in favor of the class. In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court set aside that award, prospectively decertified the class, and preserved several of the Xxxxx jury findings for use in subsequent individual actions to be filed within one year of its decision. The preserved findings include jury determinations that smoking causes various diseases, that nicotine is addictive, and that each defendant sold cigarettes that were defective and unreasonably dangerous, committed unspecified acts of negligence and individually and jointly concealed unspecified information about the health risks of smoking. In the wake of Xxxxx, thousands of individual progeny actions were filed in federal and state courts in Florida. Such actions are commonly referred to as “Xxxxx Progeny” cases. As of December 12, 2014, 806 Xxxxx Progeny cases were pending in federal court, and 3,194 of them were pending in state court. These cases include approximately 5,084 plaintiffs. In addition, as of Xxxxxxxx 00, 0000, XXX Xxxxxxx was aware of 16 additional Xxxxx Progeny cases that had been filed but not served. One hundred nineteen Xxxxx Progeny cases have been tried in Florida state and federal courts since 2011, and numerous state court trials are scheduled for 2015. The number of pending cases fluctuates for a variety of reasons, including voluntary and involuntary dismissals. Voluntary dismissals include cases in which a plaintiff accepts an “offer of judgment,” referred to in Florida statutes as “proposals for settlement,” from RJR Tobacco and/or its affiliates. An offer of judgment, if rejected by the plaintiff, preserves RJR Tobacco’s right to recover attorneys’ fees under Florida law in the event of a verdict favorable to RJR Tobacco. Such offers are sometimes made through court-ordered mediations. In Xxxxx Progeny cases tried to date, a central issue has been the proper use of the preserved Xxxxx findings. RJR Tobacco has argued that use of the Xxxxx findings to establish individual elements of progeny claims (such as defect, negligence and concealment) is a violation of federal due process. In 2013, however, both the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, referred to as the Eleventh Circuit, rejected that argument. In addition to this global due process argument, RJR Tobacco raises many other factual and legal defenses as appropriate in each case. These defenses may include, among other things, arguing that the plaintiff is not a proper member of the Xxxxx class, that the plaintiff did not rely on any statements by any tobacco company, that the trial was conducted unfairly, that some or all claims are preempted or barred by applicable statutes of limitation or statutes of repose, or that any injury was caused by the smoker’s own conduct.
Appears in 1 contract
Xxxxxxxx Tobacco Co. and the related Xxxxx Progeny cases; , the Louisiana state court class-action case, Xxxxx x. American Tobacco Co., and the case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, referred to as RICO. In 2000, a jury in Xxxxx x. Xxxxxxx Group, a class action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers by Florida smokers allegedly harmed by their addiction to nicotine, rendered a $145 billion punitive damages verdict in favor of the “Florida class” of approximately $145 billion against all defendants. In July 2006, the Florida Supreme Court set aside that Court, among other things, affirmed an appellate court’s reversal of the punitive damages award, prospectively decertified the classclass going forward, and preserved several of class-wide findings from the Xxxxx jury findings for use in subsequent individual actions to be filed within one year of its decision. The preserved findings include jury determinations that smoking causes various diseasestrial, including that nicotine is addictiveaddictive and cigarettes are defectively designed, and that each defendant sold cigarettes that authorized class members to avail themselves of these findings in individual lawsuits under certain conditions. After subsequent motions were defective and unreasonably dangerousresolved, committed unspecified acts of negligence and individually and jointly concealed unspecified information about the health risks of smokingFlorida Supreme Court issued its mandate on January 11, 2007, thus beginning a one-year period in which former class members were permitted to file individual lawsuits. In October 2007, the wake U.S. Supreme Court denied the defendants’ petition for writ of Xxxxx, thousands of individual progeny actions were filed certiorari. Individual Xxxxx Progeny cases are pending in both federal and state courts court in Florida. Such actions are commonly referred to as “Xxxxx Progeny” cases. As of December 1231, 20142011, 806 Xxxxx Progeny 3,246 cases were pending in federal court, and 3,194 of them 3,315 cases were pending in state court. These cases include approximately 5,084 7,852 plaintiffs. The number of cases will likely change due to individual plaintiffs being severed from multi-plaintiff cases and multi-plaintiff federal cases being dismissed or consolidated. In addition, as of Xxxxxxxx 00, 0000, XXX Xxxxxxx was aware of 16 46 additional Xxxxx Progeny cases that had been filed but not servedserved (with 319 plaintiffs). One hundred nineteen Xxxxx Progeny cases Fifty-seven trials have been tried occurred in Florida state and federal courts court since 20112009, and numerous state court trials are scheduled for 20152012. The number of pending cases fluctuates for a variety of reasons, including voluntary and involuntary dismissals. Voluntary dismissals include cases in which a plaintiff accepts an “offer of judgment,” referred to in Florida statutes as “proposals for settlement,” from RJR Tobacco and/or its affiliates. An offer of judgment, if rejected by the plaintiff, preserves RJR Tobacco’s right to recover attorneys’ fees under Florida law in the event of a verdict favorable to RJR Tobacco. Such offers are sometimes made through court-ordered mediations. In As Xxxxx Progeny cases tried litigation has progressed, the federal and state court systems have adopted different rules to dategovern those cases, a central issue has been the proper use of the preserved and both have courts issuing conflicting opinions. For example, in Xxxxxxx Xxxxx findings. RJR v. X. X. Xxxxxxxx Tobacco has argued that use of the Xxxxx findings to establish individual elements of progeny claims (such as defectCo., negligence and concealment) is a violation of federal due process. In 2013, however, both the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, referred to as the Eleventh Circuit, rejected held that argumentthe preserved Xxxxx findings establish only those issues “actually adjudicated” in the Xxxxx class trial. In addition to this global due process argumentother words, based on the decision in Xxxxxxx Xxxxx, the Xxxxx findings would not prevent RJR Tobacco raises many and other factual defendants from raising issues and legal defenses as appropriate that were not, or may not have been, resolved against them in each caseXxxxx. These defenses may includeThe court further held that an Xxxxx Progeny plaintiff bears the burden of showing, among other things, arguing to a “reasonable degree of certainty,” that any issue the plaintiff is not a proper member seeks to treat as established in his favor was, in fact, actually raised and resolved in Xxxxx. The court held that these standards were required by Florida preclusion law, and it reserved judgment on the question of whether the same standards were also required by the Due Process Clause of the Xxxxx classU.S. Constitution. Prior to the Eleventh Circuit decision in Xxxxxxx Xxxxx, that three federal district court judges (including the plaintiff did not rely on any statements by any tobacco company, that the trial was conducted unfairly, that some or all claims are preempted or barred by applicable statutes of limitation or statutes of repose, or judge in Xxxxxxx Xxxxx) concluded that any injury was caused by broader use of the smoker’s own conductpreserved Xxxxx findings would violate both Florida preclusion law and federal due process.
Appears in 1 contract
Xxxxxxxx Tobacco Co. and the related Xxxxx Progeny cases; and the case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, referred to as RICO. In 2000, jury returned a jury in Xxxxx x. Xxxxxxx Group, a class action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers by Florida smokers allegedly harmed by their addiction to nicotine, rendered a $145 billion punitive damages verdict in favor of the classplaintiff, however they refused to award compensatory or punitive damages and found the plaintiff to be 91% at fault. In 2006The case was filed in November 2007, in the Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Florida. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of using the defendants’ tobacco products, the decedent, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, developed lung cancer and other smoking related diseases and/or medical conditions. The plaintiff will likely file post-trial motions. RJR Tobacco, B&W and other cigarette manufacturer defendants settled Broin v. Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, Inc. in October 1997. This case had been brought in Florida state court on behalf of flight attendants alleged to have suffered from diseases or ailments caused by exposure to ETS in airplane cabins. The settlement agreement required the participating tobacco companies to pay a total of $300 million in three annual $100 million installments, allocated among the companies by market share, to fund research on the early detection and cure of diseases associated with tobacco smoke. It also required those companies to pay a total of $49 million for the plaintiffs’ counsel’s fees and expenses. RJR Tobacco’s portion of these payments was approximately $86 million; B&W’s portion of these payments was approximately $57 million. The settlement agreement bars class members from bringing aggregate claims or obtaining punitive damages and also bars individual claims to the extent that they are based on fraud, misrepresentation, conspiracy to commit fraud or misrepresentation, RICO, suppression, concealment or any other alleged intentional or willful conduct. The defendants agreed that, in any individual case brought by a class member, the defendant will bear the burden of proof with respect to whether ETS can cause certain specifically enumerated diseases, referred to as “general causation.” With respect to all other issues relating to liability, including whether an individual plaintiff’s disease was caused by his or her exposure to ETS in airplane cabins, referred to as “specific causation,” the individual plaintiff will have the burden of proof. On September 7, 1999, the Florida Supreme Court set aside approved the settlement. The Broin II cases arose out of the settlement of this case. On October 5, 2000, the Broin court entered an order applicable to all Broin II cases that awardthe terms of the Broin settlement agreement do not require the individual Broin II plaintiffs to prove the elements of strict liability, prospectively decertified breach of warranty or negligence. Under this order, there is a rebuttable presumption in the classplaintiffs’ favor on those elements, and preserved several the plaintiffs bear the burden of the Xxxxx jury findings for use proving that their alleged adverse health effects actually were caused by exposure to ETS in subsequent individual actions to be filed within one year of its decision. The preserved findings include jury determinations that smoking causes various diseasesairplane cabins, that nicotine is addictiveis, and that each defendant sold cigarettes that specific causation. As of June 30, 2011, there were defective and unreasonably dangerous, committed unspecified acts of negligence and individually and jointly concealed unspecified information about the health risks of smoking. In the wake of Xxxxx, thousands of individual progeny actions were filed in federal and state courts 2,588 Broin II lawsuits pending in Florida. Such actions are commonly referred to as “Xxxxx Progeny” cases. As of December 12, 2014, 806 Xxxxx Progeny cases were pending in federal court, and 3,194 of them were pending in state court. These cases include approximately 5,084 plaintiffs. In addition, as of Xxxxxxxx 00, 0000, XXX Xxxxxxx was aware of 16 additional Xxxxx Progeny cases that had been filed but not served. One hundred nineteen Xxxxx Progeny cases There have been tried in Florida state and federal courts no Broin II trials since 2011, and numerous state court trials are scheduled for 2015. The number of pending cases fluctuates for a variety of reasons, including voluntary and involuntary dismissals. Voluntary dismissals include cases in which a plaintiff accepts an “offer of judgment,” referred to in Florida statutes as “proposals for settlement,” from RJR Tobacco and/or its affiliates. An offer of judgment, if rejected by the plaintiff, preserves RJR Tobacco’s right to recover attorneys’ fees under Florida law in the event of a verdict favorable to RJR Tobacco. Such offers are sometimes made through court-ordered mediations. In Xxxxx Progeny cases tried to date, a central issue has been the proper use of the preserved Xxxxx findings. RJR Tobacco has argued that use of the Xxxxx findings to establish individual elements of progeny claims (such as defect, negligence and concealment) is a violation of federal due process. In 2013, however, both the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, referred to as the Eleventh Circuit, rejected that argument. In addition to this global due process argument, RJR Tobacco raises many other factual and legal defenses as appropriate in each case. These defenses may include, among other things, arguing that the plaintiff is not a proper member of the Xxxxx class, that the plaintiff did not rely on any statements by any tobacco company, that the trial was conducted unfairly, that some or all claims are preempted or barred by applicable statutes of limitation or statutes of repose, or that any injury was caused by the smoker’s own conduct2007.
Appears in 1 contract
Xxxxxxxx Tobacco Co. and the related Xxxxx Progeny cases; and the case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, referred to as RICO. In 2000, a jury in Xxxxx x. Xxxxxxx Group, a class class-action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers by Florida smokers allegedly harmed by their addiction to nicotine, rendered a $145 billion punitive damages verdict in favor of the class. In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court set aside that award, prospectively decertified the class, and preserved several of the Xxxxx jury findings for use in subsequent individual actions to be filed within one year of its decision. The preserved findings include jury determinations that smoking causes various diseases, that nicotine is addictive, and that each defendant sold cigarettes that were defective and unreasonably dangerous, committed unspecified acts of negligence and individually and jointly concealed unspecified information about the health risks of smoking. The Xxxxx findings do not indicate that all cigarettes sold by each defendant were defective and unreasonably dangerous, nor do they specify what acts of negligence each defendant committed, or what information each defendant concealed. In the wake of Xxxxx, thousands of individual progeny actions were filed in federal and state courts in Florida. Such actions are commonly referred to as “the Xxxxx Progeny” Progeny cases. As of December 12September 30, 20142013, 806 Xxxxx Progeny 1,961 cases were pending in federal court, and 3,194 of them 3,226 cases were pending in state court. These cases include approximately 5,084 6,344 plaintiffs. In addition, as of Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx 00, 0000, XXX Xxxxxxx was aware of 16 17 additional Xxxxx Progeny cases that had been filed but not served. One hundred nineteen Xxxxx Progeny and four cases have been tried in Florida state and federal courts since 20112010, and numerous state court trials are scheduled for 2015late 2013 and early 2014. The number of pending cases fluctuates for a variety of reasons, including voluntary and involuntary dismissals. Voluntary dismissals include cases in which a plaintiff accepts an “offer of judgment,” referred to in Florida statutes as “proposals for settlement,” from RJR Tobacco and/or its affiliates. An offer of judgment, if rejected by the plaintiff, preserves RJR Tobacco’s right to recover attorneys’ fees under Florida law in the event of a favorable verdict favorable to RJR Tobacco. Such offers are and is sometimes made through court-ordered mediations. In Xxxxx Progeny cases tried to date, a central issue has been the proper use of the preserved Xxxxx findings. RJR Tobacco has argued that use of the Xxxxx findings to establish individual elements of progeny claims (such as defect, negligence and concealment) is a violation of federal due process. In 2013, however, both the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, referred to as the Eleventh Circuit, rejected that argument. In addition to this global due process argument, RJR Tobacco raises many other factual and legal defenses as appropriate in each case. These defenses may include, among other things, arguing that the plaintiff is not a proper member of the Xxxxx class, that the plaintiff did not rely on any statements by any tobacco company, that the trial was conducted unfairly, that some or all claims are preempted or barred by applicable statutes of limitation or statutes of repose, or that any injury was caused by the smoker’s own conduct.
Appears in 1 contract
Xxxxxxxx Tobacco Co. and the related Xxxxx Progeny cases; the Louisiana state court class-action case, Xxxxx x. American Tobacco Co.; and the case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, referred to as RICO. In 2000, a jury in Xxxxx x. Xxxxxxx Group, a class action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers by Florida smokers allegedly harmed by their addiction to nicotinemanufacturers, rendered a $145 billion punitive damages verdict in favor of the classa class of Florida smokers allegedly harmed by their addiction to nicotine. In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court set aside reversed that award, prospectively decertified the Xxxxx class, and preserved several of the Xxxxx jury findings for use in subsequent individual actions to be filed within one year of its decision. The preserved Xxxxx findings include jury determinations that smoking causes various diseases, that nicotine is addictive, and that each defendant sold cigarettes that were defective and unreasonably dangerous, committed unspecified acts of negligence . The Xxxxx findings do not indicate that all cigarettes sold by each defendant were defective and individually and jointly concealed unspecified information about the health risks of smokingunreasonably dangerous. In the wake of Xxxxx, thousands Thousands of individual progeny actions were filed in federal and state courts in Florida. Such actions are commonly referred to as “Xxxxx Progeny” cases. As of December 1231, 20142012, 806 Xxxxx Progeny 2,443 cases were pending in federal court, and 3,194 of them 3,313 cases were pending in state court. These cases include approximately 5,084 6,937 plaintiffs. In addition, as of Xxxxxxxx 00, 0000, XXX Xxxxxxx was aware of 16 45 additional Xxxxx Progeny cases that had been filed but not served. One hundred nineteen Xxxxx Progeny Seventy-nine cases have been tried in Florida state and federal courts since 20112010, and numerous state court trials are scheduled for 20152013. The number of pending cases fluctuates for a variety of reasons, including voluntary and involuntary dismissals. Voluntary dismissals include cases in which a plaintiff accepts an “offer of judgment,” referred to in Florida statutes as “proposals for settlement,” from RJR Tobacco and/or its affiliates. An offer of judgment, if rejected by the plaintiff, preserves RJR Tobacco’s right to recover attorneys’ fees under Florida law in the event of a favorable verdict favorable to RJR Tobacco. Such offers are and is sometimes made through court-ordered mediations. In each Xxxxx Progeny cases tried to datecase, a central issue has been is the proper use of the preserved Xxxxx findings. RJR Tobacco has argued that use of the Xxxxx findings to establish individual elements of progeny claims (such as defect, negligence and concealment) is a violation of federal due process. In 2013, however, both preserved by the Florida Supreme Court Court. The federal and state courts that have addressed the question have adopted conflicting views. For example, in Xxxxxxx Xxxxx v. X. X. Xxxxxxxx Tobacco Co ., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, referred to as the Eleventh Circuit, rejected held that argumentthe preserved Xxxxx findings establish only those issues “actually adjudicated” in the Xxxxx class trial. In addition to this global due process argumentother words, those findings would not prevent RJR Tobacco raises many and other factual defendants from raising issues and legal defenses as appropriate that were not, or may not have been, resolved against them in each caseXxxxx . These defenses may includeThe court further held that an Xxxxx Progeny plaintiff bears the burden of showing, among other things, arguing to a “reasonable degree of certainty,” that any issue the plaintiff is not a proper member seeks to treat as established in his favor was, in fact, actually decided in Xxxxx . The court held that these standards were required by Florida preclusion law, and it reserved judgment on whether the same standards were also required by the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Prior to the Eleventh Circuit decision in Xxxxxxx Xxxxx class, that the plaintiff did not rely on any statements by any tobacco company, that the trial was conducted unfairly, that some or all claims are preempted or barred by applicable statutes of limitation or statutes of repose, or three federal district court judges had concluded that any injury was caused by broader use of the smoker’s own conductpreserved Xxxxx findings would violate both Florida preclusion law and federal due process.
Appears in 1 contract
Xxxxxxxx Tobacco Co. and a case filed in December 2007, in the related Xxxxx Progeny cases; and the case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ActCircuit Court, referred to as RICO. In 2000Alachua County, Florida, a jury in Xxxxx x. Xxxxxxx Group, returned a class action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers by Florida smokers allegedly harmed by their addiction to nicotine, rendered a $145 billion punitive damages verdict in favor of the classplaintiff, found RJR Tobacco to be 40% at fault, the decedent, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, to be 60% at fault, and awarded $5 million in compensatory damages and no punitive damages. The plaintiff alleged that the decedent was addicted to cigarettes and, as a result, developed lung cancer and other smoking-related conditions and/or diseases, and sought in excess of $15,000 in compensatory damages. Final judgment was entered against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $2 million. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the First DCA in July 2011. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of cross appeal and posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $2 million. In 2006October 2012, the First DCA affirmed the trial court’s ruling in full. On the direct appeal, the court held that only intentional torts could support a punitive damages claim and held that Xxxxx Progeny plaintiffs may not seek punitive damages for negligence or strict liability because the original Xxxxx class did not seek punitive damages for those claims. The First DCA certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court set aside that awardas one of great public importance. On the cross appeal, prospectively decertified the class, and preserved several of the Xxxxx jury findings for use in subsequent individual actions to be filed within one year of its decision. The preserved findings include jury determinations that smoking causes various diseases, that nicotine is addictive, and that each defendant sold cigarettes that were defective and unreasonably dangerous, committed unspecified acts of negligence and individually and jointly concealed unspecified information about the health risks of smoking. In the wake of Xxxxx, thousands of individual progeny actions were filed in federal and state courts in Florida. Such actions are commonly referred to as “Xxxxx Progeny” cases. As of December 12, 2014, 806 Xxxxx Progeny cases were pending in federal court, and 3,194 of them were pending in state court. These cases include approximately 5,084 plaintiffs. In addition, as of Xxxxxxxx 00, 0000, XXX Xxxxxxx was aware of 16 additional Xxxxx Progeny cases that had been filed but not served. One hundred nineteen Xxxxx Progeny cases have been tried in Florida state and federal courts since 2011, and numerous state court trials are scheduled for 2015. The number of pending cases fluctuates for a variety of reasons, including voluntary and involuntary dismissals. Voluntary dismissals include cases in which a plaintiff accepts an “offer of judgment,” referred to in Florida statutes as “proposals for settlement,” from RJR Tobacco and/or its affiliates. An offer of judgment, if rejected by the plaintiff, preserves RJR Tobacco’s right to recover attorneys’ fees under Florida law in arguments about the event of a verdict favorable to RJR Tobacco. Such offers are sometimes made through court-ordered mediations. In Xxxxx Progeny cases tried to date, a central issue has been the proper use of the preserved Xxxxx findings. RJR Tobacco has argued that use of the Xxxxx findings and the statute of limitations. RJR Tobacco filed a motion for rehearing or for certification to establish individual elements of progeny claims (such as defect, negligence and concealment) is a violation of federal due process. In 2013, however, both the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals plaintiff filed a motion for the Eleventh Circuit, referred to as the Eleventh Circuit, rejected that argumentrehearing or rehearing en banc. In addition January 2013, the First DCA granted rehearing on RJR Tobacco’s cross appeal to this global due process argument, RJR Tobacco raises many other factual and legal defenses as appropriate in each case. These defenses may include, among other things, arguing that the plaintiff is not a proper member of the Xxxxx class, that the plaintiff did not rely on any statements by any tobacco company, clarify that the trial was conducted unfairlycourt’s application of Xxxxx findings did not violate RJR Tobacco’s due process rights. Otherwise, that some or all claims are preempted or barred by applicable statutes rehearing, rehearing en banc and certification were denied. RJR Tobacco and the plaintiff both filed notices to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of limitation or statutes the Florida Supreme Court. In February 2014, the Florida Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction of reposeRJR Tobacco’s petition for review and accepted the plaintiff’s petition for review requesting the Florida Supreme Court review the decision of the First DCA. Oral argument is scheduled for December 4, or that any injury was caused by the smoker’s own conduct2014.
Appears in 1 contract
Xxxxxxxx Tobacco Co. and the related Xxxxx Progeny cases; and the case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, referred to as RICO. In 2000, a jury in Xxxxx x. Xxxxxxx Group, a class action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers by Florida smokers allegedly harmed by their addiction to nicotine, rendered a $145 billion punitive damages verdict in favor of the class. In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court set aside that award, prospectively decertified the class, and preserved several of the Xxxxx jury findings for use in subsequent individual actions to be filed within one year of its decision. The preserved findings include jury determinations that smoking causes various diseases, that nicotine is addictive, and that each defendant sold cigarettes that were defective and unreasonably dangerous, committed unspecified acts of negligence and individually and jointly concealed unspecified information about the health risks of smoking. In the wake of Xxxxx, thousands of individual progeny actions were filed in federal and state courts in Florida. Such actions are commonly referred to as “Xxxxx Progeny” cases. As of December 12September 17, 2014, 806 947 Xxxxx Progeny cases were pending in federal court, and 3,194 3,124 of them were pending in state court. These cases include approximately 5,084 5,172 plaintiffs. In addition, as of Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx 00, 0000, XXX Xxxxxxx was aware of 16 additional Xxxxx Progeny cases that had been filed but not served. One hundred nineteen nine Xxxxx Progeny cases have been tried in Florida state and federal courts since 20112011 through September 17, 2014, and numerous state court trials are scheduled for 20152014. The number of pending cases fluctuates for a variety of reasons, including voluntary and involuntary dismissals. Voluntary dismissals include cases in which a plaintiff accepts an “offer of judgment,” referred to in Florida statutes as “proposals for settlement,” from RJR Tobacco and/or its affiliates. An offer of judgment, if rejected by the plaintiff, preserves RJR Tobacco’s right to recover attorneys’ fees under Florida law in the event of a verdict favorable to RJR Tobacco. Such offers are sometimes made through court-ordered mediations. In Xxxxx Progeny cases tried to date, a central issue has been the proper use of the preserved Xxxxx findings. RJR Tobacco has argued that use of the Xxxxx findings to establish individual elements of progeny claims (such as defect, negligence and concealment) is a violation of federal due process. In 2013, however, both the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, referred to as the Eleventh Circuit, rejected that argument. In addition to this global due process argument, RJR Tobacco raises many other factual and legal defenses as appropriate in each case. These defenses may include, among other things, arguing that the plaintiff is not a proper member of the Xxxxx class, that the plaintiff did not rely on any statements by any tobacco company, that the trial was conducted unfairly, that some or all claims are preempted or barred by applicable statutes of limitation or statutes of repose, or that any injury was caused by the smoker’s own conduct.. Twenty-four Xxxxx Progeny cases have become final through September 17, 2014. These cases resulted in aggregate payments by RJR Tobacco of $186.4 million ($140.1 million for compensatory and punitive damages and $46.3 million for attorneys’ fees and statutory interest). On October 3, 2014, a payment of $11.9 million ($10 million for compensatory and punitive damages and $1.9 million for attorneys’ fees and statutory interest) will be made in satisfaction of the adverse judgment in the Xxxxxxxx case, described below. The following chart reflects verdicts in all individual Xxxxx Progeny cases, pending as of September 17, 2014, in which a verdict has been returned against RJR Tobacco or B&W, or both, and has not been set aside on appeal. This chart does not include the mistrials or verdicts returned in favor of RJR Tobacco or B&W, or both. Plaintiff Case Name RJR Tobacco Allocation of Fault Compensatory Damages (as adjusted)(1) Punitive Damages Appeal Status
Appears in 1 contract
