R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY
v.
JANICE DURRANCE JONES AND JULIAN DALE DURRANCE
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.
The 1999 amendments to Florida's punitive damages statute apply to wrongful death actions in which the decedent died after the effective date of the amendments, and the trial court erred in applying the pre-1999 version of the statute.
[1] The 1999 amendments to Florida's punitive damages statute, section 768.73, apply to wrongful death actions in which the decedent died after the effective date of October…
[2] A wrongful death cause of action arises upon the date of death for purposes of determining which version of the punitive damages statute applies.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the relevant 1999 amendments to section 768.73 apply in Engle progeny wrongful death actions in which the decedent died after the effective date of the amendments.”
This establishes the controlling rule that the 1999 amendments apply based on the date of death rather than the date of disease manifestation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDorothy Watson Durrance died on May 10, 2000, from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease allegedly caused by tobacco use. A jury awarded compensatory …
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 Claim For Punitive Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Appellant,
v.
JANICE DURRANCE JONES and JULIAN DALE DURRANCE, as personal representatives for the Estate of Dorothy Watson Durrance, Appellees.
No. 2D19-3537
April 20, 2022
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Martha J. Cook, Judge.
Marie A. Borland and Troy A. Fuhrman of Hill Ward Henderson, Tampa; and Jason T. Burnette, Jones Day, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellant.
David J. Sales and Daniel R. Hoffman of David J. Sales, P.А., Sarasota; James W. Gustafson, Jr., Brian R. Denney, Laurie J. Briggs, and T. Hardee Bass, III, of Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., West Palm Beach; and Hutch Pinder of Whittmore Law Group, St. Petersburg, for Appellees.
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
MORRIS, Chief Judge.
We have this case on remand from the Florida Supreme Court "for reconsideration upon application of [the Florida Supreme Court's] decision" in Sheffield v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 329 So. 3d 114, 125 (Fla. 2021). See R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Jones, No. SC21-495, 2022 WL 342916 (Fla. Feb. 4, 2022).1 Upon application of Sheffield, we reverse the portion of the final judgment awarding punitive damages and remand for further proceedings.
In Sheffield, the supreme court held that "the relevant 1999 amendments to section 768.73 apply in Engle[2] progeny wrongful death actions in which the decedent died after the effective date of the amendments." 329 So. 3d at 125. The court reasoned that the amendments clearly apply to all causes of action arising after October1, 1999, id. at 116 (quoting ch. 99-225, § 23, at 1418, § 36, at 1428, Laws of Fla.), and that a wrongful death cause of action arises upon death, id. at 119.
Pursuant to Sheffield, 329 So. 3d at 125, the 1999 version of section 768.73 applies to the wrongful death action in this case because the decedent died on May 10, 2000, after the effective date of the amendments. The 1999 version contains the following limitations on punitive damages:
(2)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), punitive damages may not be awarded against a defendant in a civil action if that defendant establishes, before trial, that punitive damages have previously been awarded against that defendant in any state or federal court in any action alleging harm from the same act or single course of conduct for which the claimant seeks compensatory damages. For purposes of a civil action, the term "the which disapproved of Evers, 232 So. 3d 457, and approved of the Fifth District's decision in Sheffield, 266 So. 3d 1230. 2 Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006).
same act or single course of conduct" includes acts resulting in the same manufacturing defects, acts resulting in the same defects in design, or failure to warn of the same hazards, with respect to similar units of a product.
(b) In subsequent civil actions involving the same act or single course of conduct for which punitive damages have already been awarded, if the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the amount of prior punitive damages awarded was insufficient to punish that defendant's behavior, the court may permit a jury to consider an award of subsequent punitive damages. In permitting a jury to consider awarding subsequent punitive damages, the court shall make specific findings of fact in the record to support its conclusion. In addition, the court may consider whether the defendant's act or course of conduct has ceased. Any subsequent punitive damage awards must be reduced by the amount of any earlier punitive damage awards rendered in state or federal court.
§ 768.73, Fla. Stat (1999). The trial court applied and instructed the jury on the pre-1999 version of the punitive damages statute at issue, which did not contain the limiting language cited above. See § 768.73, Fla. Stat. (1990-1998). Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the judgment awarding punitive damages and remand for further proceedings in accordance with Sheffield, 329 So. 3d 114, and the 1999 version of section 768.73. As the Fifth District noted in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Sheffield, 266 So. 3d 1230, 1238 n.7 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019), approved, 329 So. 3d 114 (Fla. 2021),
"whether the punitive damages award will be stricken or whether a new trial limited to punitive damages must take place depends" on the trial court's initial determination, under section 768.73(2)(b), of whether "the amount of prior punitive damages awarded was insufficient to punish" R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.'s behavior.
The final judgment is otherwise affirmed without comment.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.
LaROSE and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.