Xxxxxxxx Tobacco Co. a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, to be 15% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 85% at fault, and awarded $5 million in compensatory damages. Punitive damages were not sought. The case was filed in December 2007, in the Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, Florida. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of using the defendant’s products, the decedent suffered from pharyngeal cancer. Post-trial motions are pending. Final judgment was entered against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $4.25 million in compensatory damages. 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 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 the terms of the Broin settlement agreement do not require the individual Broin II plaintiffs to prove the elements of strict liability, breach of warranty or negligence. Under this order, there is a rebuttable presumption in the plaintiffs’ favor on those elements, and the plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that their alleged adverse health effects actually were caused by exposure to ETS in airplane cabins, that is, specific causation. As of December 31, 2012, there were 2,574 Broin II lawsuits pending in Florida. There have been no Broin II trials since 2007.
Appears in 1 contract
Xxxxxxxx Tobacco Co. a case filed in December 2007, in the Circuit Court, Alachua County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, to be 15% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 8540% at fault, the decedent, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, to be 60% at fault, and awarded $5 million in compensatory damages and no punitive damages. Punitive damages were not sought. The case was filed in December 2007, in the Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, Florida. The plaintiff alleged that the decedent was addicted to cigarettes and, as a result result, developed lung cancer and other smoking-related conditions and/or diseases, and sought in excess of using the defendant’s products, the decedent suffered from pharyngeal cancer. Post-trial motions are pending$15,000 in compensatory damages. Final judgment was entered against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $4.25 million 2 million. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the First DCA in compensatory damagesJuly 2011. RJR TobaccoTobacco filed a notice of cross appeal and posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $2 million. In October 2012, B&W 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 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 held that Xxxxx Progeny plaintiffs may not seek punitive damages for negligence or ailments caused by exposure to ETS in airplane cabinsstrict liability because the original Xxxxx class did not seek punitive damages for those claims. The settlement agreement required First DCA certified the participating tobacco companies question to pay a total the Florida Supreme Court as one of $300 million in three annual $100 million installmentsgreat public importance. On the cross appeal, 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. court rejected RJR Tobacco’s portion arguments about the use of these payments was approximately $86 million; B&W’s portion the Xxxxx findings and the statute of these payments was approximately $57 millionlimitations. The settlement agreement bars class members from bringing aggregate claims RJR Tobacco filed a motion for rehearing or obtaining punitive damages and also bars individual claims for certification to the extent that they are based on fraud, misrepresentation, conspiracy to commit fraud Florida Supreme Court and the plaintiff filed a motion for rehearing or misrepresentation, RICO, suppression, concealment or any other alleged intentional or willful conductrehearing en banc. The defendants agreed that, in any individual case brought by a class memberIn January 2013, the defendant will bear First DCA granted rehearing on RJR Tobacco’s cross appeal to clarify that the burden trial court’s application of proof with respect Xxxxx findings did not violate RJR Tobacco’s due process rights. Otherwise, rehearing, rehearing en banc and certification were denied. RJR Tobacco and the plaintiff both filed notices 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,” invoke the individual plaintiff will have discretionary jurisdiction of the burden of proofFlorida Supreme Court. On September 7, 1999In February 2014, the Florida Supreme Court approved declined to accept jurisdiction of RJR Tobacco’s petition for review and accepted the settlement. The Broin II cases arose out plaintiff’s petition for review requesting the Florida Supreme Court review the decision of the settlement of this caseFirst DCA. On October 5Oral argument is scheduled for December 4, 2000, the Broin court entered an order applicable to all Broin II cases that the terms of the Broin settlement agreement do not require the individual Broin II plaintiffs to prove the elements of strict liability, breach of warranty or negligence. Under this order, there is a rebuttable presumption in the plaintiffs’ favor on those elements, and the plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that their alleged adverse health effects actually were caused by exposure to ETS in airplane cabins, that is, specific causation. As of December 31, 2012, there were 2,574 Broin II lawsuits pending in Florida. There have been no Broin II trials since 20072014.
Appears in 1 contract
Xxxxxxxx Tobacco Co. a the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, however they refused to award compensatory or punitive damages and found the decedent, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, plaintiff to be 15% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 8591% at fault, and awarded $5 million in compensatory damages. Punitive damages were not sought. The case was filed in December November 2007, in the Circuit Court, Miami-Dade Palm Beach County, Florida. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of using the defendant’s defendants’ tobacco products, the decedent suffered from pharyngeal cancerdecedent, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, developed lung cancer and other smoking related diseases and/or medical conditions. PostThe plaintiff will likely file post-trial motions are pending. Final judgment was entered against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $4.25 million in compensatory damagesmotions. 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 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 the terms of the Broin settlement agreement do not require the individual Broin II plaintiffs to prove the elements of strict liability, breach of warranty or negligence. Under this order, there is a rebuttable presumption in the plaintiffs’ favor on those elements, and the plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that their alleged adverse health effects actually were caused by exposure to ETS in airplane cabins, that is, specific causation. As of December 31June 30, 20122011, there were 2,574 2,588 Broin II lawsuits pending in Florida. There have been no Broin II trials since 2007.
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 returned 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 plaintiff, found the decedent, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, to be 15% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 85% at fault, and awarded $5 million in compensatory damagesclass. Punitive damages were not sought. The case was filed in December 2007, in the Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, Florida. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of using the defendant’s products, the decedent suffered from pharyngeal cancer. Post-trial motions are pending. Final judgment was entered against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $4.25 million in compensatory damages. 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, 1999In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court approved set aside that award, prospectively decertified the settlementclass, and preserved several of the Xxxxx jury findings for use in subsequent individual actions to be filed within one year of its decision. The Broin II cases arose out of the settlement of this case. On October 5preserved findings include jury determinations that smoking causes various diseases, 2000, the Broin court entered an order applicable to all Broin II cases that the terms of the Broin settlement agreement do not require the individual Broin II plaintiffs to prove the elements of strict liability, breach of warranty or negligence. Under this order, there nicotine is a rebuttable presumption in the plaintiffs’ favor on those elementsaddictive, 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 plaintiffs bear health risks of smoking. In the burden wake of proving that their alleged adverse health effects actually Xxxxx, thousands of individual progeny actions were caused by exposure filed in federal and state courts in Florida. Such actions are commonly referred to ETS in airplane cabins, that is, specific causationas “Xxxxx Progeny” cases. As of December 3112, 20122014, there 806 Xxxxx Progeny cases were 2,574 Broin II lawsuits pending in Floridafederal court, and 3,194 of them were pending in state court. There 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 no Broin II tried in Florida state and federal courts since 2011, and numerous state court trials since 2007are 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. a case filed in November 2007, in the Circuit Court, Xxxxx County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, to be 15% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 85% at fault, and awarded $5 million in compensatory damages. Punitive damages were not sought. The case was filed in December 2007, in the Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, FloridaTobacco. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of using the defendant’s products, the decedent decedent, Xxxxx Xxxxx, suffered from pharyngeal cancerbodily injury and died. PostThe plaintiff sought an unspecified amount of damages. At this time, it is unknown if the plaintiff will file post-trial motions are pending. Final judgment was entered against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $4.25 million in compensatory damagesor an appeal. 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 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 the terms of the Broin settlement agreement do not require the individual Broin II plaintiffs to prove the elements of strict liability, breach of warranty or negligence. Under this order, there is a rebuttable presumption in the plaintiffs’ favor on those elements, and the plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that their alleged adverse health effects actually were caused by exposure to ETS in airplane cabins, that is, specific causation. As of December 31September 17, 20122014, there were 2,574 2,570 Broin II lawsuits pending in Florida. There have been no Broin II trials since 2007.
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 returned 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 plaintiff, found the decedent, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, to be 15% at fault and RJR Tobacco to be 85% at fault, and awarded $5 million in compensatory damagesclass. Punitive damages were not sought. The case was filed in December 2007, in the Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, Florida. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of using the defendant’s products, the decedent suffered from pharyngeal cancer. Post-trial motions are pending. Final judgment was entered against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $4.25 million in compensatory damages. 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, 1999In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court approved set aside that award, prospectively decertified the settlementclass, and preserved several of the Xxxxx jury findings for use in subsequent individual actions to be filed within one year of its decision. The Broin II 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 September 17, 2014, 947 Xxxxx Progeny cases arose out were pending in federal court, and 3,124 of them were pending in state court. These cases include approximately 5,172 plaintiffs. In addition, as of Xxxxxxxxx 00, 0000, XXX Xxxxxxx was aware of 16 additional Xxxxx Progeny cases that had been filed but not served. One hundred nine Xxxxx Progeny cases have been tried in Florida state and federal courts since 2011 through September 17, 2014, and numerous state court trials are scheduled for 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 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 settlement 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 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 53, 20002014, the Broin court entered an order applicable to all Broin II cases that the terms 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 Broin settlement agreement do not require the individual Broin II plaintiffs to prove the elements of strict liability, breach of warranty or negligence. Under this order, there is a rebuttable presumption adverse judgment in the plaintiffs’ favor on those elementsXxxxxxxx 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 plaintiffs bear the burden mistrials or verdicts returned in favor of proving that their alleged adverse health effects actually were caused by exposure to ETS in airplane cabinsRJR Tobacco or B&W, that is, specific causation. As of December 31, 2012, there were 2,574 Broin II lawsuits pending in Florida. There have been no Broin II trials since 2007or both.
Appears in 1 contract
