PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.
v.
BRENDA CHADWELL, ETC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A case involving fraudulent concealment claims in tobacco litigation must be reconsidered under the reliance requirements established in Prentice v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
[1] In Engle-progeny tobacco litigation, the standards for proving fraudulent concealment and reliance established in Prentice v. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePhilip Morris USA, Inc. appealed a Third District Court of Appeal decision in a case involving Brenda Chadwell. The case involved claims related to to…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fraudulent Concealment cases and more on FLexlaw
Supreme Court of Florida
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2022
CASE NO.: SC20-943 Lower Tribunal No(s).: 3D19-239; 132010CA017931000001
PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC. vs.
BRENDA CHADWELL, ETC.
Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)
Upon review of the response to this Court’s Order to Show Cause dated May 18, 2022, and the reply, the Court has determined that it should exercise jurisdiction in this case. It is ordered that the Petition for Review is granted, the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision in this case is quashed, and this matter is remanded to the district court for reconsideration upon application of our decision in Prentice v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 338 So. 3d 831 (Fla. 2022). No motion for rehearing will be entertained by the Court.
MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, POLSTON, COURIEL, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur. LABARGA, J., concurs in result only with an opinion. FRANCIS, J., did not participate.
LABARGA, J., concurring in result only.
Because I strongly believe that proof of fraudulent concealment in an Engle-progeny case does not require proof of reliance on a specific statement by an Engle defendant, I dissented to this Court’s holding in Prentice v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 338 So. 3d 831 (Fla. 2022).
CASE NO.: SC20-943 Page Two
In this case, I recognize, as does the respondent, that this Court’s holding in Prentice is controlling. However, I reaffirm my dissent in Prentice, and I concur in result only to the extent that Prentice requires this result. A True Copy Test:
ks Served: