Email
Password
(Forgot Password?)
House Speaker Johnnie Byrd, R-Plant City, is an ardent foe of higher taxes.
But how does that mesh with the fact that a $100 million tax bill was recently approved by the House subcommittee on Trades, Professions and Regulated Businesses?
The bill (HB 405) would impose a 50 cents-a-pack cigarette tax on a group of tobacco manufacturers that were not part of the state's original settlement with the industry in 1997. The state reached the multibillion-dollar settlement with the cigarette companies after filing a lawsuit alleging smoking was contributing to higher public health costs in programs like Medicaid.
The state's settlement was with the big four tobacco companies, Phillip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, Brown and Williamson and Lorillard, that dominate the market.
But in recent years, smaller companies have increased their share of the Florida market to as much as 15 percent, apparently in part because they can offer cheaper products since they aren't paying a portion of the settlement that the larger companies must pay.
Jump to full article »
In its praise for a decision brought by a Miami U.S. District Court jury in favor of the company and a competitor, cigarette maker Philip Morris USA (NYSE: MO) has reissued its complaints for class action lawsuits.
Criticism over class actions from that company and others comes as cigarette makers await a decision on their appeal to a $145 billion verdict against them and in favor of Florida smokers.
In an individual lawsuit decided Friday, Sylvia Allen had asked a jury to award more than $5.2 million in compensatory damages, plus punitive damages, for the 1999 death of her 64-year-old husband, James R. "Bob" Allen, according to New York-based Philip Morris USA.
Criticism over class actions from that company and others comes as cigarette makers await a decision on their appeal to a $145 billion verdict against them and in favor of Florida smokers. . .
Ohlemeyer also said the Allen case, which is unrelated to class action suits, shows why these types of cases should be tried individually.
"Juries must be allowed to decide -on a case-by-case basis - the reasons why a person smokes, their awareness of the health risks and whether a cigarette company improperly influenced their smoking decisions," he said.
Ohlemeyer added juries cannot fairly decide these types of issues when claims of thousands of smokers are lumped together and the case is tried as a class action.
The jury asked for and received copies of testimony from doctors on both sides who disagreed about the cause of photographer Bob Allen's cancer.
Family attorneys said the cause was his addiction to cigarettes since age 13. Experts for Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds insisted his cancer spread from his kidneys and the cause will never be known.
Tobacco lawyers said his smoking, alcoholism, obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure and blood pressure medication were possibilities. . .
Allen's death certificate listed the cause of death as lung cancer from smoking. Tobacco lawyers blamed that on a public health bias against smoking in a case with no autopsy.
The jury asked for and received copies of testimony from doctors on both sides who disagreed about the cause of photographer Bob Allen's cancer. . .
Tobacco lawyers said his smoking, alcoholism, obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure and blood pressure medication were possibilities. They had no comment leaving court.
"I have no comment. It's kind of hard right now," said Allen's widow Sylvia. She bowed her head after the verdict was read. Her lead attorney slumped in his chair.
Today in Miami, a Federal Court jury refused to hold cigarette companies responsible for the death of former smoker, Bob Allen, in 1999. This jury, like many others, decided that the health risks of smoking have been known for many years and that people like Mr. Allen, who chose to smoke should not recover money damages from cigarette makers.
Get video here
In the latest in a recent string of legal victories for the tobacco industry, a Florida jury today returned a verdict in favor of the nation's two largest tobacco companies. The jury concluded that the companies were not responsible for the death of James Robert Allen, a smoker whose wife claimed that he developed lung cancer from smoking the companies' products. Sylvia Allen filed the suit in 2001 as personal representative of her husband's estate. Today's win marks the 7th consecutive verdict in favor of U.S. tobacco companies in smoking-and- health lawsuits.
"This verdict shows once again that jurors who have seen the evidence generally use their common sense and conclude that smokers have long been aware of the well-known risks of smoking, and that people who choose to smoke in the face of these known risks should not be financially rewarded," said Benjamine Reid, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company's lead attorney in the case.
Martin L. Holton III, vice president and assistant general counsel for Reynolds Tobacco, added: "Today's verdict reconfirms the strength of our defenses in individual lawsuits. The jury evaluated all of the evidence in this case and concluded that Mrs. Allen's claims lacked merit."
Philip Morris USA and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the two largest U.S. cigarette makers, were cleared by a jury of responsibility for a longtime smoker's death.
Relatives claimed James Robert Allen was addicted to cigarettes as a youth and they accused the tobacco companies of targeting minors with advertising and lying to the public about the health risks of smoking. The suit sought $5 million in compensation from Philip Morris, a unit of Altria Group Inc., and R.J. Reynolds, a unit of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Inc.
The victory was the latest by cigarette makers in suits by individual smokers. The companies lost two mulibillion dollar verdicts in such cases on the West Coast, while fending off similar claims elsewhere. Analysts hadn't viewed the Allen case as a serious threat to the companies.
``Mr. Allen was well aware of the risks of smoking and accepted those risks,'' Philip Morris Associate General Counsel William Ohlemeyer said. ``The law does not permit a person who makes an informed decision to smoke recover damages in a case like this.''
Friday February 28, 6:15 pm ET
MIAMI--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 28, 2003--Today a U.S. District Court jury returned a verdict in favor of Philip Morris USA Inc. in a case brought by the family of a smoker.
Sylvia Allen had asked the jury to award more than $5.2 million in compensatory damages, plus punitive damages, for the 1999 death of her 64-year-old husband, James R. "Bob" Allen.
"The jury reached the correct decision in light of evidence that showed Mr. Allen was well aware of the risks of smoking and accepted those risks; the law does not permit a person who makes an informed decision to smoke to recover damages in a case like this," said William S. Ohlemeyer, Philip Morris USA vice president and associate general counsel.
Ohlemeyer also said the case, which is unrelated to the Engle class action, demonstrates why these types of cases should be tried on an individual basis.
This four-page document, "A Review of Awareness of the Surgeon General's Warning by Brand", is a survey doneforPhilip Morris, Inc. by the polling firm of Gallup & Robinson in 1973 to gaugepublic awareness of the U.S. Surgeon General's warning about the health hazards of smoking. The document was one of over 250,000 that Philip Morris was allowed to keep confidential following the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement . .
An article in an AP Wire Service/New York article of February 6, 2003 (Judge Allows Survey in Smoker Trial) about the Sylvia Allen case currently ongoing in Miami, Florida, reported that this document had been admitted to evidence in that case. . .
The survey shows that only 3.1% of smokers were aware of the Surgeon General's health warning about the dangers of smoking at that time. An average of only 5.7% of the total sampled population were aware of the warnings. The survey is significant because of the frequent tobacco industry claim that knowledge of government warnings about the dangers of of smoking was widespread at that time. This survey shows that awareness of government health warnings in reality was actually very low, and even lower among smokers than in the overall population.
The survey is significant because of the frequent tobacco industry claim that knowledge of government warnings about the dangers of smoking was widespread at that time. This survey shows that awareness of government health warnings in reality was actually very low, and even lower among smokers than in the overall population.Anne Landman