| Commitments and Contingencies | Note 13 — Commitments and Contingencies Tobacco Litigation — General Introduction Litigation, claims, and other legal proceedings relating to the use of, exposure to, or purchase of tobacco products are pending or may be instituted in the future against RJR Tobacco (including as successor by merger to Lorillard Tobacco), American Snuff Co., SFNTC, RJR Vapor, RAI, Lorillard, other RAI affiliates, and indemnitees (including but not limited to B&W), sometimes referred to collectively as Reynolds Defendants. These pending legal proceedings include claims relating to cigarette products manufactured by RJR Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco, SFNTC or certain of their affiliates or indemnitees, smokeless tobacco products manufactured by American Snuff Co., and e-cigarette products manufactured on behalf of and marketed by RJR Vapor. A discussion of the legal proceedings relating to cigarette products (and e-cigarettes) is set forth below under the heading “— Litigation Affecting the Cigarette Industry.” All of the references under that heading to tobacco-related litigation, smoking and health litigation and other similar references are references to legal proceedings relating to cigarette products or e-cigarettes, as the case may be, and are not references to legal proceedings involving smokeless tobacco products, and case numbers under that heading include only cases involving cigarette products and e-cigarettes. The legal proceedings relating to the smokeless tobacco products manufactured by American Snuff Co. are discussed separately under the heading “— Smokeless Tobacco Litigation” below. In connection with the B&W business combination, RJR Tobacco undertook certain indemnification obligations with respect to B&W and its affiliates, including its indirect parent, BAT. See “— Litigation Affecting the Cigarette Industry – Overview – Introduction” below. In connection with the Lorillard Merger and Divestiture, as applicable, RAI and RJR Tobacco undertook certain indemnification obligations. See “— Litigation Affecting the Cigarette Industry – Overview – Introduction,” “— Other Contingencies – ITG Indemnity,” and “— Other Contingencies – Loews Indemnity” below. In addition, in connection with the sale of the non-U.S. operations and business of the NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand, the Sellers have agreed to indemnify the buyer for certain claims. See “— Other Contingencies – JTI Indemnities” below. Certain Terms and Phrases Certain terms and phrases used in this footnote may require some explanation. The term “judgment” or “final judgment” refers to the final decision of the court resolving the dispute and determining the rights and obligations of the parties. At the trial court level, for example, a final judgment generally is entered by the court after a jury verdict and after post-verdict motions have been decided. In most cases, the losing party can appeal a verdict only after a final judgment has been entered by the trial court. The term “damages” refers to the amount of money sought by a plaintiff in a complaint, or awarded to a party by a jury or, in some cases, by a judge. “Compensatory damages” are awarded to compensate the prevailing party for actual losses suffered, if liability is proved. In cases in which there is a finding that a defendant has acted willfully, maliciously or fraudulently, generally based on a higher burden of proof than is required for a finding of liability for compensatory damages, a plaintiff also may be awarded “punitive damages.” Although damages may be awarded at the trial court stage, a losing party generally may be protected from paying any damages until all appellate avenues have been exhausted by posting a supersedeas bond. The amount of such a bond is governed by the law of the relevant jurisdiction and generally is set at the amount of damages plus some measure of statutory interest, modified at the discretion of the appropriate court or subject to limits set by a court or statute. The term “ per curiam The term “settlement” refers to certain types of cases in which cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco, B&W and Lorillard Tobacco, have agreed to resolve disputes with certain plaintiffs without resolving the cases through trial. The principal terms of certain settlements entered into by RJR Tobacco, B&W and Lorillard Tobacco are explained below under “— Accounting for Tobacco-Related Litigation Contingencies.” Theories of Recovery The plaintiffs seek recovery on a variety of legal theories, including negligence, strict liability in tort, design defect, failure to warn, fraud, misrepresentation, violations of unfair and deceptive trade practices statutes, conspiracy, medical monitoring and violations of state and federal antitrust laws. In certain of these cases, the plaintiffs claim that cigarette smoking exacerbated injuries caused by exposure to asbestos or, in the case of certain claims asserted against Lorillard Tobacco, that they were injured by exposure to filters containing asbestos used in one cigarette brand for roughly four years before 1957, the latter cases referred to as Filter Cases. The plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including compensatory and, where available, punitive damages, treble or multiple damages and statutory damages and penalties, creation of medical monitoring and smoking cessation funds, disgorgement of profits, and injunctive and other equitable relief. Although alleged damages often are not determinable from a complaint, and the law governing the pleading and calculation of damages varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, compensatory and punitive damages have been specifically pleaded in a number of cases, sometimes in amounts ranging into the hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars. Defenses The defenses raised by Reynolds Defendants include, where applicable and otherwise appropriate, preemption by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of some or all claims arising after 1969, or by the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education Act for claims arising after 1986, the lack of any defect in the product, assumption of the risk, contributory or comparative fault, lack of proximate cause, remoteness, lack of standing, statutes of limitations or repose and others. RAI, RJR and Lorillard have asserted additional defenses, including jurisdictional defenses, in many of the cases in which they are named. Accounting for Tobacco-Related Litigation Contingencies In accordance with GAAP, RAI and its subsidiaries record any loss concerning litigation at such time as an unfavorable outcome becomes probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated on an individual case-by-case basis. For the reasons set forth below, RAI’s management continues to conclude that the loss of any particular pending tobacco-related litigation claim against the Reynolds Defendants, when viewed on an individual basis, is not probable, except for certain Engle Reynolds Defendants believe that they have valid defenses to the tobacco-related litigation claims against them, as well as valid bases for appeal of adverse verdicts against them. Reynolds Defendants have, through their counsel, filed pleadings and memoranda in pending tobacco-related litigation that set forth and discuss a number of grounds and defenses that they and their counsel believe have a valid basis in law and fact. With the exception of the Engle Engle RAI’s consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2016, contains accruals for the following Engle Starr-Blundell Buonomo, Ward . Wilcox U.S. Department of Justice It is the policy of Reynolds Defendants to defend tobacco-related litigation claims vigorously; generally, Reynolds Defendants and indemnitees do not settle such claims. However, Reynolds Defendants may enter into settlement discussions in some cases, if they believe it is in their best interests to do so. Exceptions to this general approach include, but are not limited to, actions taken pursuant to “offer of judgment” statutes, as described below in “ — Litigation Affecting the Cigarette Industry – Overview,” and Filter Cases, as described below in “— Litigation Affecting the Cigarette Industry – Filter Cases,” as well as other historical examples discussed below. With respect to smoking and health tobacco litigation claims, the only significant settlements reached by RJR Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco and B&W involved:
•
the State Settlement Agreements and the funding by various tobacco companies of a $5.2 billion trust fund contemplated by the MSA to benefit tobacco growers;
•
the original Broin Broin II
•
most of the Engle The circumstances surrounding the State Settlement Agreements and the funding of a trust fund to benefit the tobacco growers are readily distinguishable from the current categories of tobacco-related litigation claims involving Reynolds Defendants. In the claims underlying the State Settlement Agreements, the states sought to recover funds paid for health care and medical and other assistance to state citizens suffering from diseases and conditions allegedly related to tobacco use. The State Settlement Agreements settled all the health-care cost recovery actions brought by, or on behalf of, the settling jurisdictions and contain releases of various additional present and future claims. In accordance with the MSA, various tobacco companies agreed to fund a $5.2 billion trust fund to be used to address the possible adverse economic impact of the MSA on tobacco growers. A discussion of the State Settlement Agreements, and a table depicting the related payment schedule, is set forth below under “— Litigation Affecting the Cigarette Industry – Health-Care Cost Recovery Cases.” As with claims that were resolved by the State Settlement Agreements, the other cases settled by RJR Tobacco can be distinguished from existing cases pending against the Reynolds Defendants. The original Broin Broin II The federal Engle Engle Engle Engle Engle Engle Engle Engle In 2010, RJR Tobacco entered into a comprehensive agreement with the Canadian federal, provincial and territorial governments, which resolved all civil claims related to the movement of contraband tobacco products in Canada during the period 1985 through 1999 that the Canadian governments could assert against RJR Tobacco and its affiliates. These claims involved different theories of recovery than the other tobacco-related litigation claims pending against the Reynolds Defendants. Also, in 2004, RJR Tobacco and B&W separately settled the antitrust case DeLoach v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., DeLoach Finally, as discussed under “— Litigation Affecting the Cigarette Industry – State Settlement Agreements—Enforcement and Validity; Adjustments,” RJR Tobacco, B&W and Lorillard Tobacco each has settled certain cases brought by states concerning the enforcement of State Settlement Agreements. Despite legal defenses believed to be valid, these cases were settled to avoid further contentious litigation with the states involved. These enforcement actions involved alleged breaches of State Settlement Agreements based on specific actions taken by particular defendants. Accordingly, any future enforcement actions involving State Settlement Agreements will be reviewed by RJR Tobacco on the merits and should not be affected by the settlement of prior enforcement cases. Cautionary Statement Even though RAI’s management continues to believe that the loss of particular pending tobacco-related litigation claims against Reynolds Defendants, when viewed on an individual case-by-case basis, is not probable or estimable (except for certain Engle Although Reynolds Defendants believe that they have valid bases for appeals of adverse verdicts in their pending cases and valid defenses to all actions and intend to defend them vigorously as described above, it is possible that there could be further adverse developments in pending cases, and that additional cases could be decided unfavorably against Reynolds Defendants. Determinations of liability or adverse rulings in such cases or in similar cases involving other cigarette manufacturers as defendants, even if such judgments are not final, could have a material adverse effect on the litigation against Reynolds Defendants and could encourage the commencement of additional tobacco-related litigation. Reynolds Defendants also may enter into settlement discussions in some cases, if they believe it is in their best interests to do so. In addition, a number of political, legislative, regulatory and other developments relating to the tobacco industry and cigarette smoking have received wide media attention. These developments may negatively affect the outcomes of tobacco-related legal actions and encourage the commencement of additional similar litigation. Although it is impossible to predict the outcome of such events on pending litigation and the rate new lawsuits may be filed against Reynolds Defendants, a significant increase in litigation or in adverse outcomes for tobacco defendants, or difficulties in obtaining the bonding required to stay execution of judgments on appeal, could have a material adverse effect on any or all of these entities. Moreover, notwithstanding the quality of defenses available to Reynolds Defendants in litigation matters, it is possible that RAI’s results of operations, cash flows or financial position could be materially adversely affected by the ultimate outcome of certain pending litigation or future claims against Reynolds Defendants. Litigation Affecting the Cigarette Industry Table of Contents
Page
Overview
99
Individual Smoking and Health
102
West Virginia IPIC
103
Engle and Engle Progeny Cases
104
Broin II
120
Class Actions
120
Filter Cases
124
Health-Care Cost Recovery
125
State Settlement Agreements—Enforcement and Validity; Adjustments
130
Other Litigation and Developments
134 Overview Introduction. In connection with the B&W business combination, RJR Tobacco agreed to indemnify B&W and its affiliates against, among other things, certain litigation liabilities, costs and expenses incurred by B&W or its affiliates arising out of the U.S. cigarette and tobacco business of B&W. Also, as a result of the Lorillard Tobacco Merger, Lorillard Tobacco was merged into RJR Tobacco with RJR Tobacco being the surviving entity, Lorillard Tobacco ceasing to exist, and RJR Tobacco succeeding to Lorillard Tobacco’s liabilities, including Lorillard Tobacco’s litigation liabilities, costs and expenses. Although Lorillard Tobacco no longer exists as a result of the Lorillard Tobacco Merger, it will remain as a named party in cases pending on the date of the Lorillard Tobacco Merger until courts grant motions to substitute RJR Tobacco for Lorillard Tobacco or the claims are dismissed. The cases discussed below include cases brought against RJR Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco and their affiliates and indemnitees, including RAI, RJR, B&W and Lorillard. Cases brought against SFNTC and RJR Vapor also are discussed. During the fourth quarter of 2016, 23 tobacco-related cases were served against Reynolds Defendants. On December 31, 2016, there were, subject to the exclusions described immediately below, 304 cases pending against Reynolds Defendants: 287 in the United States and 17 in Canada, as compared with 268 total cases on December 31, 2015. Of the U.S. cases pending on December 31, 2016, 34 are pending in federal court, 252 in state court and one in tribal court, primarily in the following states: Illinois (52 cases); Maryland (52 cases); Florida (27 cases); New York (21 cases); Missouri (19 cases); Massachusetts (18 cases); New Mexico (14 cases); and California (12 cases). The U.S. case number excludes the approximately 564 individual smoker cases pending in West Virginia state court as a consolidated action, 2,822 Engle Broin II The following table lists the categories of the U.S. tobacco-related cases pending against Reynolds Defendants as of December 31, 2016, and the increase or decrease from the number of cases pending against Reynolds Defendants as of September 30, 2016, as reported in RAI’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2016, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, referred to as the SEC, on October 19, 2016, and a cross-reference to the discussion of each case type.
Case Type
U.S. Case Numbers as of December 31, 2016
Change in Number of Cases Since September 30, 2016 Increase/(Decrease)
Individual Smoking and Health
132
7
West Virginia IPIC (Number of Plaintiffs)*
1 (approx. 564)
No change
Engle Progeny (Number of Plaintiffs)**
2,822 (approx. 3,645)
(66) (110)
Broin
2,406
(15)
Class Action
25
1
Filter Cases
78
4
Health-Care Cost Recovery
2
No change
State Settlement Agreements—Enforcement and Validity; Adjustments
28
No change
Other Litigation and Developments
21
No change
*
Includes as one case the approximately 564 cases pending as a consolidated action In Re: Tobacco Litigation Individual Personal Injury Cases West Virginia IPIC West Virginia IPIC
**
The Engle The Florida state court class-action case, Engle v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Engle Engle Engle Engle Engle Scheduled Trials Trial Results Engle Engle Engle Engle Engle In November 1998, the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco, B&W and Lorillard Tobacco, entered into the MSA with 46 U.S. states, Washington, D.C. and certain U.S. territories and possessions. These cigarette manufacturers previously settled four other cases, brought on behalf of Mississippi, Florida, Texas and Minnesota, by separate agreements with each state. These State Settlement Agreements:
•
settled all health-care cost recovery actions brought by, or on behalf of, the settling jurisdictions;
•
released the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers from various additional present and potential future claims;
•
imposed future payment obligations in perpetuity on RJR Tobacco, B&W, Lorillard Tobacco and other major U.S. cigarette manufacturers; and
•
placed significant restrictions on their ability to market and sell cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products. Payments under the State Settlement Agreements are subject to various adjustments for, among other things, the volume of cigarettes sold, relative market share, operating profit and inflation. See “— Health-Care Cost Recovery Cases — State Settlement Agreements” below for a detailed discussion of the State Settlement Agreements, including RAI’s operating subsidiaries’ monetary obligations under these agreements. RJR Tobacco records the allocation of settlement charges as products are shipped. Scheduled Trials. Trial schedules are subject to change, and many cases are dismissed before trial. There are 49 cases, exclusive of Progeny cases, scheduled for trial as of December 31, 2016 through December 31, 2017 , for RJR Tobacco, B&W, Lorillard Tobacco or their affiliates and indemnitees: six individual smoking and health cases, 34 Filter Cases, five cases and four other non-smoking and health cases. There are also approximately 115 Progeny cases against RJR Tobacco, B&W and/or Lorillard Tobacco set for trial through December 31, 2017. It is not known how many of these cases will actually be tried. Trial Results. From January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2016, 124 individual smoking and health, Progeny, Filter and health-care cost recovery cases in which RJR Tobacco, B&W and/or Lorillard Tobacco were defendants were tried, including nine trials for cases where mistrials were declared in the original proceedings. Verdicts in favor of RJR Tobacco, B&W and Lorillard Tobacco and, in some cases, other defendants, were returned in 60 cases, tried in Florida (39), California (1) and New Jersey (1). There were also 19 mistrials in Florida. Verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs were returned in 57 cases tried in Florida, and one in California. Four cases in Florida were dismissed during trial. One case in Florida was a retrial only as to the amount of damages. In another case in Florida, the jury entered a partial verdict that did not include compensatory or punitive damages, and post-trial motions are pending. In the fourth quarter of 2016, 11 Engle
•
In Wallace v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
•
In Konzelman v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
•
In Maloney v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
•
In Johnston v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
•
In Ledo v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
•
In Howles v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
•
In Kloppenburg v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
•
In Ford v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
•
In Stanley Martin v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
•
In Dubinsky v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
•
In Pardue v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. For a detailed description of the above-described cases, see “— Engle Engle In the fourth quarter of 2016, no non- Engle In the fourth quarter of 2016, no Filter cases, in which RJR Tobacco and/or Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant, were tried. For information on the verdicts in the Engle Engle Engle Engle Engle
Date of Verdict
Case Name/Type
Jurisdiction
Verdict
August 17, 2006
United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. [Governmental Health-Care Cost Recovery]
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, (Washington, D.C.)
RJR Tobacco, B&W and Lorillard Tobacco were found liable for civil RICO claims; were enjoined from using certain brand descriptors and from making certain misrepresentations; and were ordered to make corrective communications on five subjects, including smoking and health and addiction, to reimburse the U.S. Department of Justice appropriate costs associated with the lawsuit, and to maintain document web sites.
May 26, 2010
Izzarelli v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. [Individual]
U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut, (Bridgeport, CT)
$13.76 million in compensatory damages; 58% of fault assigned to RJR Tobacco, which reduced the award to $7.98 million against RJR Tobacco; $3.97 million in punitive damages.
September 13, 2013
DeLisle v. A. W. Chesterton Co. [Filter]
Circuit Court, Broward County, (Ft. Lauderdale, FL)
$8 million in compensatory damages; 44% of fault assigned to Lorillard Tobacco, which reduced the award to $3.52 million against Lorillard Tobacco.
July 30, 2014
Major v. Lorillard Tobacco Co. [Individual]
Superior Court, Los Angeles County, (Los Angeles, CA)
$17.74 million in compensatory damages; 17% of fault assigned to Lorillard Tobacco, which reduced the award to $3.78 million against Lorillard Tobacco.
July 8, 2015
Larkin v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. [Individual]
Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, (Miami, FL)
$4.96 million in compensatory damages; 62% of fault assigned to RJR Tobacco; $8.5 million in punitive damages. Comparative fault did not apply to the final judgment. For information on the post-trial status of individual smoking and health cases, the governmental health-care cost recovery case and the Filter Cases, see “— Individual Smoking and Health Cases,” “— Health-Care Cost Recovery Cases – U.S. Department of Justice Case,” and “— Filter Cases,” respectively, below. Individual Smoking and Health Cases As of December 31, 2016, 132 individual cases were pending in the United States against RJR Tobacco, B&W (as RJR Tobacco’s indemnitee), Lorillard Tobacco or all three. This category of cases includes smoking and health cases alleging personal injuries caused by tobacco use or exposure brought by or on behalf of individual plaintiffs based on theories of negligence, strict liability, breach of express or implied warranty, and violations of state deceptive trade practices or consumer protection statutes. The plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and punitive damages. The category does not include the Broin II, Engle West Virginia IPIC Below is a description of the non- Engle On May 26, 2010, in Izzarelli v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co Izzarelli Bifolck v. Philip Morris, Inc Bifolck Izzarelli On July 30, 2014, in Major v. Lorillard Tobacco Co. On July 8, 2015, in Larkin v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. On February 8, 2016, in Pooshs v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. Major West Virginia IPIC In re: Tobacco Litigation Individual Personal Injury Cases (Cir. Ct. Ohio County, W. Va., filed beginning in 1999), is a series of roughly 1,200 individual cases asserting claims against Philip Morris USA Inc., Lorillard Tobacco, RJR Tobacco, B&W and The American Tobacco Company based on alleged personal injuries The cases were consolidated for a Phase I trial on various defense conduct issues, to be followed in Phase II by individual trials of remaining claims. On May 15, 2013, the Phase I jury found that defendants’ cigarettes were not defectively designed; defendants’ cigarettes were not defective due to a failure to warn before July 1, 1969; defendants were not negligent, did not breach warranties, and did not engage in conduct warranting punitive damages; and defendants’ ventilated filter cigarettes manufactured and sold between 1964 and July 1, 1969 were defective for a failure to instruct. In November 2014, the West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the verdict. On June 8, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ petition for writ of certiorari. On the same date, the trial court issued an order finding that only 30 plaintiffs are alleged to have smoked ventilated filter cigarettes in the relevant period. On October 9, 2015, the trial court outlined the procedures for resolving the claims of the 30 Phase II plaintiffs, which claims will focus on whether plaintiffs blocked cigarette vents and, if so, whether blocking proximately caused their alleged injuries. Five cases were selected to be the first claims tried, and they were tentatively scheduled to be tried beginning on May 1, 2017 . In June 2016, the court granted the defendants’ motion to compel and required the plaintiffs to file additional expert disclosures necessary to attempt to proceed with their claims. The court will set a revised discovery and trial schedule after the expert disclosures are tested for admissibility, and it pushed the tentative trial date to May 2018. In addition to the foregoing claims, various plaintiffs in 1999 and 2000 asserted claims against retailers and distributors. Those claims were severed and stayed pending the outcome of Phase I. Also, 41 plaintiffs asserted smokeless tobacco claims against various smokeless manufacturers, including 14 claims against certain Reynolds Defendants. Those claims were severed from IPIC Engle and Engle Progeny Cases In July 1998, trial began in Engle v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., , On July 14, 2000, the jury in Phase II awarded the class a total of approximately $145 billion in punitive damages, which were apportioned $36.3 billion to RJR Tobacco, $17.6 billion to B&W, and $16.3 billion to Lorillard Tobacco. The defendants appealed. On December 21, 2006, the Florida Supreme Court prospectively decertified the class and set aside the jury’s Phase II punitive damages award. But the court preserved certain of the jury’s Phase I findings, including that cigarettes can cause certain diseases, nicotine is addictive, and defendants placed defective cigarettes on the market, breached duties of care, concealed health-related information, and conspired. The court also authorized former class members to file individual lawsuits within one year, and it stated that the preserved findings would have res judicata In the year after the Florida Supreme Court’s Engle Engle Engle Engle Engle Engle At the beginning of the Engle Engle Engle en banc Engle Hess v. Philip Morris USA Inc. Russo v. Philip Morris USA Inc. Engle Graham v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Engle en banc Marotta v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Graham Engle Marotta, In June 2009, Florida amended its existing bond cap statute by adding a $200 million bond cap that applied to all Engle Engle Engle During 2015, RJR Tobacco and Lorillard Tobacco, together with Philip Morris USA Inc., settled virtually all of the Engle Engle One hundred twenty Engle Engle Starr-Blundell Buonomo, Ward Starr-Blundell Buonomo.
Plaintiff Case Name
RJR Tobacco Allocation of Fault
Lorillard Tobacco Allocation of Fault
Compensatory Damages (as adjusted) (1)
Punitive Damages
Appeal Status
Starr-Blundell
10%
—
$
50,000
$
—
First DCA, per curiam Soffer
Buonomo
77.5%
—
4,060,000
25,000,000
Fourth DCA affirmed the amended final judgment, per curiam
Totals
$
4,110,000
$
25,000,000
(1)
Compensatory damages are adjusted to reflect the reduction that may be required by the allocation of fault. Punitive damages are not adjusted and reflect the amount of the final judgment(s) signed by the trial court judge(s). The amounts listed above do not include attorneys’ fees or statutory interest of approximately $13.3 million or approximately $1.6 million in attorneys’ fees and statutory interest in Ward The following chart lists judgments in all other individual Engle
Plaintiff Case Name
RJR Tobacco Allocation of Fault
Lorillard Tobacco Allocation of Fault
Compensatory Damages (as adjusted) (1)
Punitive Damages
Appeal Status
Putney
30%
—
$
—
$
2,500,000
Fourth DCA reinstated the punitive damages awards of $2.5 million each against RJR Tobacco and the remaining defendant; court's opinion that previously granted remittitur of the compensatory damages awards still stands; remanded to trial court for further proceedings
Andy Allen
24%
—
2,475,000
7,756,000
Pending – First DCA
Calloway
27%
18%
—
—
Fourth DCA granted rehearing en banc
James Smith
55%
—
600,000
(2)
20,000
Pending – Eleventh Circuit
Evers
60%
9%
2,950,000
12,360,000
Second DCA reinstated punitive damage award of $12.36 million the trial court had set aside; the verdict was reinstated on remand; a subsequent appeal is pending in the Second DCA
Schoeff
75%
—
7,875,000
—
Pending – Florida Supreme Court
Marotta
58%
—
3,480,000
—
Pending – Florida Supreme Court
Searcy
30%
—
500,000
(2)
1,670,000
Pending – Eleventh Circuit
Earl Graham
20%
—
550,000
—
Eleventh Circuit held that federal law impliedly preempts claims for strict liability and negligence based on the defect and negligence findings from Engle en banc
Skolnick
30%
—
—
—
Fourth DCA set aside judgment and ordered a partial new trial
Grossman
75%
—
11,514,000
22,500,000
Fourth DCA ordered award of compensatory damages reduced to reflect comparative fault, but otherwise affirmed; RJR Tobacco filed a motion for rehearing on February 6, 2017; decision is pending
Gafney
33%
33%
—
—
Fourth DCA reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial; Florida Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction; new trial has not been scheduled
Burkhart
25%
10%
3,500,000
(2)
1,750,000
Pending – Eleventh Circuit
Bakst (Odom)
75%
—
—
—
Fourth DCA reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for a new trial on damages only; motion for rehearing was filed on January 9, 2017
Robinson
71%
—
16,900,000
16,900,000
Pending – First DCA
Harris
15%
10%
1,100,000
(2)
—
Post-trial motions are pending (3)
Irimi
15%
15%
—
—
Pending – Fourth DCA
Lourie
3%
7%
137,000
—
Second DCA affirmed the final judgment; defendants filed a notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court on September 8, 2016; Florida Supreme Court stayed proceedings pending disposition of Marotta
Kerrivan
31%
—
6,046,660
(2)
9,600,000
Post-trial motions are pending (3)
Schleider
70%
—
14,700,000
—
Pending – Third DCA
Perrotto
20%
6%
1,063,000
—
Plaintiff's motion for a new trial granted as to punitive damages; new trial scheduled for June 5, 2017
Ellen Gray
50%
—
3,000,000
—
Post-trial motions are pending (3)
Sowers
50%
—
2,125,000
—
Post-trial motions are pending (3)
Caprio
20%
10%
167,700
—
Appeal in the Fourth DCA dismissed; pending in trial court
Zamboni
30%
—
102,000
—
Final judgment has not been entered
Pollari
43%
—
4,250,000
1,500,000
Pending – Fourth DCA
Gore
23%
—
460,000
—
Pending – Fourth DCA
Ryan
65%
—
13,975,000
25,000,000
Pending – Fourth DCA
Hardin
13%
—
100,880
—
Third DCA remanded the case for a new trial on punitive damages for the non-intentional tort claims; new trial has not been scheduled
McCoy
25%
20%
670,000
6,000,000
Pending – Fourth DCA
Block
50%
—
463,000
800,000
Pending – Fourth DCA
Lewis
25%
—
187,500
—
Pending – Fifth DCA
Cooper
40%
—
1,200,000
—
Pending – Fourth DCA
Duignan
30%
—
2,690,000
(2)
2,500,000
Pending – Second DCA
O'Hara
85%
—
14,700,000
20,000,000
Pending – First DCA
Marchese
22.5%
—
225,000
250,000
Pending – Fourth DCA
Barbose
42.5%
—
5,000,000
(2)
500,000
Pending – Second DCA
Monroe
58%
—
6,380,000
—
Pending – First DCA
Ledoux
47%
—
5,000,000
(2)
12,500,000
Pending – Third DCA
Ewing
2%
—
4,800
—
Post-trial motions denied; final judgment has not been entered
Ahrens
44%
—
5,800,000
(2)
2,500,000
Pending – Second DCA
Turner
|
