Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court refused a request made by tobacco companies, including Philip Morris USA Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Lorillard Tobacco Co., to reevaluate the landmark Engle ruling made by the Florida Supreme Court in 2006. The 2006 decision overturned a $145 billion class action settlement reached with the tobacco companies that allowed 700,000 smokers and their family members to sue the companies independently over allegations they were harmed by cigarettes with the benefit of the Engle jury’s eight liability determinations.
The tobacco companies filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court to the Engle class action lawsuit decision in April. The companies claimed that the decision violated their due process rights when plaintiffs were allowed to use jury findings from Engle in their individual personal injury lawsuits. The Engle decision included that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, that nicotine is addictive, that the companies negligently placed defective products on the market and that manufacturers hid the dangers of smoking.
Philip Morris USA Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Lorillard Tobacco Co., filed 10 petitions with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the ruling has resulted in verdicts from class action lawsuits and individual lawsuits that total more than $500 million and that they are currently facing thousands of lawsuits nationwide related to the marketing and sale of nicotine cigarettes. The tobacco companies claim that the ruling violates their right to due process. The companies also claim that the rulings from Florida have been favorable to plaintiffs who claim they were harmed by the tobacco companies’ marketing and sale of cigarettes thus far, and the companies are worried that the rulings may set the tone for current litigation that is pending across the United States.
In response to the decision denying their petitions, an R.J. Reynolds spokesperson said: “We are of course disappointed by the denial of review because we continue to believe that the way the lower courts are applying the Engle findings is unconstitutional. As our recent track record indicates, we have many strong defenses, both factual and legal, and we will continue to press them accordingly.”
A spokesperson from Philip Morris stated simply, “We are disappointed, but we’ll continue to vigorously defend ourselves in all pending cases.”
An attorney who represented a plaintiff in one of the original class action lawsuits on appeal, commended the decision, stating the U.S. Supreme Court has endorsed “a fair and efficient process for trials on smoker-specific causation and damages. We greatly appreciate the willingness of the state and federal courts to allow the Engle class-Florida smokers and their survivors harmed by smoking-related diseases back in the ‘90s and before, in the era of concealment of tobacco addiction and its deadly consequences, to have their individual days in court.”
The Cigarette Class Action Lawsuit cases are Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Barbanell, Case No. 13-1180; Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Mrozek, Case No. 13-1185; R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Mack, Case No. 13-1186; R.J. Reynolds v. Brown, Case No. 13-1187; R.J. Reynolds v. Kirkland, Case No. 13-1188; R.J. Reynolds v. Koballa, Case No. 13-1189; R.J. Reynolds v. Smith, Case No. 13-1190; R.J. Reynolds v. Townsend, Case No. 13-1191; R.J. Reynolds v. Sury, Case No. 13-1192; and R.J. Reynolds v. Walker, Case No. 13-1193, in the Supreme Court of the United States.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association
LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
©2008 – 2024 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
This website is not intended for viewing or usage by European Union citizens.
4 thoughts onSupreme Court Denies Tobacco Co.’s Review of Smoker Injury Lawsuits
Ok so we’ve heard that smoking can cause lung cancer and or heart disease… so that’s what you keep an eye on when your a smoker. Your lungs & your heart… WELL, no one ever said anything about A rare blood cancer- polycythemia. Purely from smoking cigarettes.
And nobody ever warned about being so addicted to smoking That even when you’re told you have such a horrible life threatening condition you still won’t be able to quit… all those chemicals they put in to hook us – there has to be more than just nicotine that is addictive cause I’ve tried and tried to quit. 28 years of smoking Marlboro cigarettes- about 10 years of trying EVERYTHING to quit, gum, patches, lozenges, counseling along with workbooks… mood swings like you wouldn’t believe… why can’t I quit? Even after knowing It’s killing me? Don’t just tell me I’m addicted to nicotine cause there has to be more to it than that! They add so many chemicals to the Tobacco they shouldn’t even be aloud to call it tobacco anymore. They need to print on the packs that even after being told cigarettes are killing you with whatever Diagnosed killer you’ve acquired- obviously way more than just lung cancer or heart disease….they need to let you know you still won’t be able to quit! They got us right where they want us… Paying $9 a pack /per day Towards our own deaths.
my dad died in April 1981 from smoking cigarettes he had an addiction and part of the engle who gave out a trust fund..but, never knew we could of sued individual for my father and we are still trying to sue for damages,death,etc need Help!
I suffered the loss of my sister in 2010 due to small cell carcinoma. It was in the lining of her lung, sitting on a major aorta of her heart! She went to Raleigh Durham, North Carolina hospital. Once diagnosed, they hit her with chemo and radiation. They burned her esophagus so bad that they would bring in a pill into her room, pound it on the counter until it was a powder form, then mix it with some liquid for her to swallow. This would numb her burned esophagus enough so she could swallow the pills they gave her. I flew from Illinois twice to help take care of her. My husband and I drove down twice as well. During the time she had cancer, she also had a tumor on the brain and one on her temple. One caused one eyelid to droop and the other caused the opposite corner of her mouth to droop. They did surgery, but she had to have additional radiation. I’ve seen the effects of “chemo brain”. Eventually it was in her bones. I feel the big tobacco companies should pay for me having to endure her second hand smoke as well. She did not get to be here for the birth of two of her three grandchildren or see her daughter get married. Where is that extra money that the tobacco companies haven’t paid out yet, because I could use part of the settlement. I miss her so much. I really do not understand why tobacco products haven’t been banned for the addictions and loss they cause!
I would like to be heard about cigarettes and cancer. I as long as my mom and two sisters lost my dad to lung cancer in Aug.of 1975. He smoked 2 to three packs of various cigarettes. I lost my dad whom we all loved dearly to lung cancer at the age of 42. I missed him walking me down the aisle and seeing all of the grandchildren he would of met and loved. There is not one day since that I think about what would it have been like if my dad was still in our lives. My mom never remarried.