R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Giambalvo
In an Engle progeny wrongful death case, the Second DCA held that Reynolds was entitled to a directed verdict on the conspiracy to fraudulently conceal claim because the Estate presented no direct or circumstantial evidence that the decedent received, believed, and acted upon any statement by a tobacco coconspirator, as Prentice II requires. Generalized expert testimony about pervasive misleading advertising, plus family testimony about the decedent's beliefs regarding filters, was insufficient. The court affirmed the negligence and strict liability verdicts as independent claims but ordered compensatory damages reduced by the jury's comparative fault apportionment and a new trial on punitive damages.
Key facts
- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. was sued by the Estate of a deceased smoker in a wrongful death action involving claims of negligence, strict liability, and conspiracy to fraudulently conceal information about tobacco products.
- The trial court submitted the conspiracy to fraudulently conceal claim to the jury, which returned verdicts for the Estate on negligence, strict liability, and conspiracy, with a punitive damages award.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This is a significant application of Prentice II that tightens the evidentiary showing required for reliance in Engle progeny concealment and conspiracy claims, expressly signaling that earlier, more permissive Second… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
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.