PHILIP MORRIS USA INC v. DUIGNAN (2022)

In this Engle 1 progeny case, Philip Morris USA Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (the tobacco defendants) appeal a final judgment entered in favor of Kevin Duignan, as personal representative of the Estate of Douglas Clarence Duignan (the Estate), after this court reversed an earlier judgment and remanded for a new trial. See Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Duignan (Duignan I), 243 So. 3d 426 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). We affirm the final judgment and write only to address a conflict with the First District.

In Duignan I, in considering a special jury instruction issue raised by the tobacco defendants, we held that the Estate was not required to show reliance on “a statement” made by the defendants in order for the Estate to prevail on its claims for fraud by concealment and conspiracy. Id. at 440–43. On remand, the tobacco defendants again argued and preserved this issue.

The Third and Fourth Districts have since agreed with our holding in Duignan I. See, e.g., Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Chadwell, 306 So. 3d 174, 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020); R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Burgess, 294 So. 3d 910, 914–15 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). But the First District has disagreed and held that in order to support claims for fraudulent concealment and conspiracy, an Engle plaintiff must prove reliance on a false statement from a tobacco company. See R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Prentice, 290 So. 3d 963, 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), review granted, No. SC20-291, 2020 WL 4590156 (Fla. Aug. 11, 2020); R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Whitmire, 260 So. 3d 536, 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018); see also R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Bessent-Dixon, 313 So. 3d 173, 174–75 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021). Therefore, we certify conflict with Prentice, Whitmire, and Bessent-Dixon to the extent that they conflict with our holding in Duignan I, 243 So. 3d at 440–43.

Affirmed; conflict certified.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006).

PER CURIAM.

MORRIS, C.J., and KELLY and LABRIT, JJ., Concur.