← Case library
FL Supreme CourtNovember 18, 2021Fifth District result approved; conflicting First, Second, and Fourth District decisions disapproved⚡ Circuit Split Resolved

Sheffield v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company

Case No. SC19-601

Resolving a certified conflict among four DCAs, the Florida Supreme Court held that the 1999 amendments to section 768.73 capping/presumptively barring successive punitive damages awards apply to Engle progeny wrongful death actions where the smoker died after October 1, 1999. The Court reasoned that a wrongful death action is a new and independent statutory cause of action that arises (i.e., accrues) only upon death, so the causes of action here arose in 2007 and are governed by the amended statute. It approved the Fifth District's decision in Sheffield and disapproved Allen, Evers, and Konzelman.

Key facts

  • Sheffield and other smokers' estates brought wrongful death actions against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company as Engle progeny cases, seeking punitive damages for deaths occurring after October 1, 1999.
  • The trial court and four District Courts of Appeal reached conflicting decisions on whether the 1999 amendments to section 768.73—which cap and presumptively bar successive punitive damages awards for the same conduct—applied to these wrongful death actions.
  • +2 more key facts with a free trial

Why it matters

This decision definitively resolves a four-district conflict and gives tobacco and other repeat-defendant litigants a potent defense: prior punitive awards for the same course of conduct presumptively bar new punitive… — 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.