R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Webb, 1D15–1291.
Decision Date | 21 March 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 1D15–1291.,1D15–1291. |
Citation | 187 So.3d 388 |
Parties | R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Appellant, v. Dianne WEBB, Personal Representative of the Estate of James Cayce Horner, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jeffrey L. Furr of King & Spalding, LLP, Charlotte, NC; William L. Durham, II, Valentin Leppert, Chad A. Peterson, Frank T. Bayuk, Phillip R. Green of King & Spalding, LLP, Atlanta, GA, Jeffrey A. Yarbrough, Robert B. Parrish, David C. Reeves of Moseley, Prichard, Parrish, Knight & Jones, Jacksonville, Stephanie E. Parker, John F. Yarber, John M. Walker of Jones Day, Atlanta, GA, for Appellant.
Mark A. Avera and Dawn M. Vallejos–Nichols of Avera & Smith, Gainesville; James W. Gustafson, Jr. of Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., Tallahassee; David J. Sales of David J. Sales, P.A., Jupiter; Steven Brannock, Celene H. Humphries, Tyler K. Pitchford of Brannock & Humphries, Tampa, for Appellee.
, J.
In this Engle -progeny case,1 Appellant, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, challenges the trial court's Final Judgment for Resolution Funds and argues that because Appellee, Dianne Webb, as personal representative of the estate of her father, James Cayce Horner, was not entitled to collect the money damages awarded to her following the appeal of the initial final judgment, the parties' agreement as to attorney's fees is unenforceable. We agree with Appellant and, therefore, reverse.
Appellee filed a wrongful death action against Appellant, raising claims of strict liability, fraud by concealment, conspiracy to commit fraud by concealment, and negligence.
In accordance with the jury's verdict, the trial court entered a Final Judgment ("2010 Final Judgment"), wherein it directed Appellant to pay Appellee $7,200,000 in compensatory damages and $72,000,000 in punitive damages, for a total sum of $79,200,000. Following the entry of the 2010 Final Judgment, Appellee filed Plaintiff's Motion to Tax Fees and Costs based on a proposal for settlement.
The parties entered into an attorney's fee agreement ("Agreement") on May 20, 2011, which set forth in part:
(Emphasis added). Following the execution of the Agreement, Appellee filed Plaintiff's Notice of Limited Withdrawal of Her Motion to Tax Fees and Costs with Prejudice. Therein, she set forth in part that the withdrawal was pursuant to the parties' Agreement "resolving and agreeing to a total dollar amount of fees and costs that have been incurred to date ...."
In its appeal of the 2010 Final Judgment, Appellant argued for reversal on multiple grounds, two of which addressed the damages award. See R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Webb, 93 So.3d 331, 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
. We found that the amount of compensatory damages suggested an award that was the product of passion, and because we vacated the amount of compensatory damages, we vacated the award of punitive damages as well. Id. at 339. We did not "disturb the judgment as to liability," but we "reverse[d] both the compensatory and the punitive damage awards and remand[ed] the case with directions that the trial court grant the motion for remittitur or order a new trial on damages only." Id. at 332, 339. The 2010 Final Judgment was "affirm[ed] ... in all other respects." Id. at 339.
On remand, the trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mac Papers, Inc. v. Genesis Press, Inc.
...and unambiguous, the contract must be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the plain meaning." R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Webb , 187 So.3d 388, 392 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016). "This is because the contractual language reveals the intent of the parties, and therefore, the plain lang......
-
Brier v. De Cay
...clear and unambiguous, the contract must be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the plain meaning." R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Webb, 187 So. 3d 388, 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). "Where there is an unambiguous contractual provision . . . , a trial court cannot give it any other meaning......
-
Robles v. United Auto. Ins. Co.
...Our standard of review when interpreting a contract, including an insurance contract, is de novo. See R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Webb , 187 So. 3d 388, 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) ; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mashburn , 15 So. 3d 701, 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). The Insurer failed to defi......