R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Schoeff, 4D13–1765.

• Decision Date: 04 November 2015
• Docket Number: No. 4D13–1765.,4D13–1765.
• Citation: 178 So.3d 487
• Parties: R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Appellant, v. Joan SCHOEFF, as Personal Representative of the Estate of James Edward Schoeff, deceased, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

178 So.3d 487

R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Appellant,

v.Joan SCHOEFF, as Personal Representative of the Estate of James Edward Schoeff, deceased, Appellee.

No. 4D13–1765.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 4, 2015.

Gordon James, III, and Eric L. Lundt of Sedgwick LLP, Fort Lauderdale, and Gregory G. Katsas, of Jones Day, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

John S. Mills and Courtney Brewer of The Mills Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, Alex Alvarez of The Alvarez Law Firm, Coral Gables, and Gary M. Paige of Gordon & Doner, Davie, for appellee.

DAMOORGIAN, J.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company ("RJR") appeals the final judgment entered in favor of Joan Schoeff Spolzino as Representative of the estate of her deceased husband, James Schoeff ("Plaintiff"). RJR raises four issues on appeal. First, it contends that the trial court erred in denying its motion for a directed verdict because Plaintiff failed to prove addiction causation. Second, it asserts that certain comments made by Plaintiff's counsel during closing necessitate a new trial. Third, it argues that the court erred in denying its motion to remit the jury's compensatory and punitive damages awards. Fourth, it argues that the court's application of the Engle¹ findings violated its due process rights. Plaintiff cross-appeals, arguing that the court erroneously reduced the jury's compensatory damages award based on Mr. Schoeff's comparative fault. We reverse and remand for remittitur of the punitive portion of the judgment, and affirm in all other respects.

Background

a) Pleadings

The instant case is an Engle progeny case. See Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla.2006). Plaintiff filed suit against RJR² asserting membership in the Engle class because her husband died from lung cancer"caused by his addiction to cigarettes." In her suit, Plaintiff alleged causes of action for strict liability, fraud by concealment, conspiracy to commit fraud by concealment, negligence, and gross negligence. She also admitted that Mr. Schoeff shared some fault for his smoking-related injuries and represented that she would "seek apportionment of fault, pursuant to the principles of comparative fault, on the counts for negligence and strict liability; however not with respect to the counts constituting intentional torts as pled in this action."

b) The Trial

The case proceeded to trial in two phases in the manner we approved in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Brown, 70 So.3d 707, 714 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). In the first phase, the jury was asked to: 1) determine whether Mr. Schoeff was a member of the Engle class; 2) if so, whether RJR's conduct was the legal cause of his death; and 3) determine damages. The jury was also asked to determine whether Plaintiff was entitled to punitive damages if it found against RJR on Plaintiff's claims for fraudulent concealment or conspiracy to fraudulently conceal.

After considering the evidence, the jury returned its verdict, finding that Mr. Schoeff was addicted to nicotine, his addiction was a legal cause of his lung cancer and death; and that the negligence of RJR as well as the defective and unreasonably dangerous cigarettes manufactured by RJR were a legal cause of Mr. Schoeff's lung cancer and death. It allocated Mr. Schoeff's comparative fault for his injuries at 25%. Additionally, the jury found that Mr. Schoeff detrimentally relied on statements made by RJR which concealed or omitted material information, and that such reliance was a legal cause of his cancer and death. Based on these findings, the jury awarded Plaintiff $10.5 million in compensatory damages and found that punitive damages were warranted.

The second phase of the trial concerned the proper amount of punitive damages. During closing arguments in this phase, Plaintiff's counsel asked the jury to award Plaintiff $25 million in punitive damages and no more. Specifically, counsel stated: "you may think that's too low, but we urge you not to go above that. Please do not go above 25 million. Do not. She doesn't want that. Do not go above that." Despite Plaintiff's urging, the jury returned a verdict assessing $30 million in punitive damages against RJR.

c) Post–Trial Motions and Rulings

Following the trial, RJR filed a motion asking the court to reduce the compensatory damages award to reflect the comparative fault assigned to Mr. Schoeff by the jury. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition arguing that the comparative fault statute should not apply since the jury found RJR committed the intentional tort of fraudulent concealment. Additionally, RJR moved for a new trial on evidentiary grounds. In the alternative, RJR moved for remittitur of both the compensatory and punitive damages awards, arguing that they were both excessive and not supported by the evidence.

Considering the above pleadings, the trial court granted RJR's motion to enter judgment consistent with the jury's finding on comparative fault, denied RJR's motion for a new trial, and denied RJR's motion to remit the compensatory and punitive damages awards. In granting RJR's motion to reduce the jury's compensatory award by Mr. Schoeff's comparative fault, the court ruled that Plaintiff waived her argument regarding comparative fault based on representations counsel made to the jury. Alternatively, the court ruled that even if Plaintiff had not waived her argument, the intentional tort exception to the comparative fault statute would not apply as Plaintiff's suit was a products liability suit at its core. In denying RJR's motion to remit the punitive damages award, the court recognized that there was no logical basis for the jury to award a larger amount than Plaintiff requested, but found that the jury's award was "NOT infected by bias, prejudice, passion or any other sentiment against Defendant."

In accordance with its above rulings, the court entered final judgment awarding Plaintiff $7,875,000 in compensatory damages and $30 million in punitive damages, for a total of $37,875,000. This appeal follows.

Analysis

We affirm the court's denial of RJR's motion for directed verdict, motion for a new trial, and motion to remit the jury's compensatory damages award without further comment. We also affirm the court's application of the Engle findings pursuant to our decision in Brown and our supreme court's decision in Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Douglas, 110 So.3d 419 (Fla.2013). We write only to address the punitive damages award and the court's reduction of the compensatory award based on Mr. Schoeff's comparative fault.

a) Punitive Damages

RJR argues that the court erred in refusing to remit the $30 million punitive damages award because it is unconstitutionally excessive. This Court reviews a trial court's order denying a motion for remittitur for an abuse of discretion. City of Hollywood v. Hogan, 986 So.2d 634, 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). However, the constitutionality of a punitive damages award is reviewed de novo. Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Alexander, 123 So.3d 67, 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).

Pursuant to Florida's remittitur and additur statute, the trial court has the responsibility to review the amount of an award and determine if it is excessive or inadequate "in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact." § 768.74(1), Fla. Stat. (2012). "If the court finds that the amount awarded is excessive or inadequate, it shall order a remittitur or additur, as the case may be." § 768.74(2), Fla. Stat. In making its determination, the trial court is guided by the following statutory considerations:

(a) Whether the amount awarded is indicative of prejudice, passion, or corruption on the part of the trier of fact;

(b) Whether it appears that the trier of fact ignored the evidence in reaching a verdict or misconceived the merits of the case relating to the amounts of damages recoverable;

(c) Whether the trier of fact took improper elements of damages into account or arrived at the amount of damages by speculation and conjecture;

(d) Whether the amount awarded bears a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and the injury suffered; and

(e) Whether the amount awarded is supported by the evidence and is such that it could be adduced in a logical manner by reasonable persons.

§ 768.74(5), Fla. Stat.

"[T]he purpose of punitive damages is not to further compensate the plaintiff, but to punish the defendant for its wrongful conduct and to deter similar misconduct by it and other actors in the future." Owens—Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Ballard, 749 So.2d 483, 486 (Fla.1999). The amount of punitive damages to be awarded is an issue left to the discretion of the jury. Id. However, the imposition of a punitive damage award is subject to limitations.

Under Florida law, the courts evaluate the extent of a punitive damages award by considering whether: 1) the amount is so excessive as to be "out of all reasonable proportion" to the conduct; 2) the award bears some relationship to ability to pay; and 3) there is a reasonable relationship between compensatory and punitive damages. See R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Townsend, 90 So.3d 307, 313 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). As for whether any given punitive damages award is so excessive as to violate due process, the United States Supreme Court has identified three guideposts to consider: 1) the degree of reprehensibility of defendant's conduct; 2) the ratio between compensatory and punitive damages; and 3) civil and criminal penalties for the same conduct. Id. (citing BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 562, 116 S.Ct. 1589, 134 L.Ed.2d 809 (1996) ). "Although there is no bright-line standard, the Florida Supreme Court observed in Engle that ‘[s]ingle-digit [ratios] are more likely to comport with due process, while still achieving the State's goals of deterrence and retribution.’ " Id. at 314 (quoting Engle, 945 So.2d at 1264–65 (quoting State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 425, 123 S.Ct. 1513, 155 L.Ed.2d 585 (2003) )).

At this juncture in...