Prentice v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
Resolving a conflict among the district courts, the Florida Supreme Court held that an Engle progeny plaintiff pursuing fraudulent concealment or concealment conspiracy must prove detrimental reliance on a statement made by an Engle defendant or co-conspirator that concealed or omitted material information about the health effects or addictiveness of smoking. The Court rejected the theory that reliance may be premised on 'silence,' 'concealment,' or 'an omission,' and held the trial court's instruction asking whether the smoker relied on the conspiracy itself was erroneous and prejudicial. It approved the First District's decision and disapproved Duignan (2d DCA), Chadwell (3d DCA), and Burgess (4th DCA) to the extent inconsistent.
Key facts
- Prentice, a smoker, sued R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and other Engle defendants in a fraudulent concealment and concealment conspiracy case, seeking damages for smoking-related injuries.
- The trial court instructed the jury that the plaintiff could establish reliance on the defendants' conspiracy to withhold health information and acts in furtherance of it, without requiring proof of reliance on a specific statement.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This is a landmark decision reshaping the proof burden in the thousands of remaining Engle progeny tobacco cases, resolving a four-district conflict in favor of the tobacco defendants' reliance-on-a-statement… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.