Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Brenda Chadwell, etc.

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:

GEOFFREY J. MICHAEL

J. MICHAEL FITZGERALD

BARD D. ROCKENBACH

FRANK CRUZ-ALVAREZ

WILLIAM J. WICHMANN

MIGUEL S. PASTRANA

HON. HARVEY RUVIN, CLERK

JACQUELINE HOGAN SCOLA

ANDREW JACOBSON

CHRISTOPHER KANNE

WALTER LACK

HON. MERCEDES M. PRIETO, CLERK