<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Tobacco Articles: lawsuit fabiano</title>
<link>http://www.tobacco.org/newsfeed/lawsuit/fabiano.rss</link>
<description>Latest top tobacco news headlines</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<item>
<title>New York Appellate Court Says State Settlement Bars Punitive Awards In Individual Lawsuits</title>
<link>http://www.altria.com/media/press_release/03_02_pr_2008_07_22_01.asp</link>
<guid>http://tobacco.org/news/269380.html</guid>
<description>
The court held that &quot;punitive damages claims are quintessentially and exclusively public in their ultimate orientation and purpose.&quot; The court concluded that the interest in punitive damages was therefore &quot;previously and appropriately represented by the State Attorney General&quot; in a 1998 settlement brought on behalf of all of the people of the State.

&quot;Philip Morris USA believes the appellate court reached the legally correct decision in barring an individual plaintiff from seeking punitive damages. The ruling still permits the award of compensatory damages in individual cases,&quot; said Murray Garnick</description>
<source url="http://www.altria.com/">Altria Group, Inc.</source>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>FABIANO v. PHILIP MORRIS, ET. AL. (PDF)</title>
<link>http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/ad1/calendar/appsmots/2008/July/2008_07_22_dec.pdf%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20Ed</link>
<guid>http://tobacco.org/news/269100.html</guid>
<description>As is here relevant, that agreement expressly provided for the release of claims ~for past conduct . in any
way related. . to (A) the use, sale, distribution,
manufacture, development, advertising, marketing or health
effects of, (B) the exposure to, or (C) research, statements, or
warnings regarding, Tobacco Products,&quot; and defined claims
expansively, specifically including within the definition
~punitive damages. . accrued or unaccrued.&quot; Also expansive
was the Agreement's definition of those who were deemed to be
releasing claims thereunder. Pursuant to the Agreement,
releasors of claims included, in addition to the states, ~persons
or entities acting in a parens patriae . private attorney
general. . or any other capacity, whether or not any of them
participate in this settlement&quot; insofar as such persons or
entities sought ~relief on behalf of or generally applicable to
the general pUblic in such Settling State or the people of the
State, as opposed solely to private or individual relief for
separate and distinct injuries.&quot; . . .

While it is undoubtedly true that plaintiffs' private claims
seeking compensation for personal injury could not have been
prosecuted by the Attorney General ~within the parens patriae
umbrella&quot; (see Alfred L Snapp &amp; Son, Inc. v Puerto Rico, 458 US
592, 600, 607 [1982]), the claim asserted by them for punitive
damages is not similarly disqualified, for punitive damages
claims are quintessentially and exclusively public in their
ultimate orientation and purpose . . .

 the courts of
this State have been so adamant that punitive damages are &quot;a
social exemplary 'remedy,' [and] not a private compensatory
remedy,&quot; that the imposition of such damages for private purposes
has been held to violate public policy . . . 

In view of the decidedly public nature of the interests
properly vindicated by a punitive damages claim, plaintiffs'
argument that the Master Settlement Agreement limits the
preclusive effect of the ensuing judgment is manifestly without
merit. While a judgment's preclusive effect may be limited by
provisions in an underlying settlement agreement splitting a
claim and specifically saving a severed portion of the claim from
release (see e.g. Keith v Aldridge, 900 F2d 736, 740 [1990], cert
denied sub nom Keith v Rice, 498 US 900 [1990]; and see
Restatement [Second] of Judgments &#167; 26 [1] [a] ), no such limitation
applicable to claims for punitive damages is discernible from the
Master Settlement Agreement. Indeed, the Agreement acknowledges
the survival only of claims &quot;for private or individual relief for
separate and distinct injuries&quot; and specifically releases claims
&quot;seeking relief on behalf of or generally applicable to the
general public,&quot; expressly including within its enumeration of
released claims, claims for &quot;punitive damages . . . . accrued or unaccrued.&quot;
</description>
<source url="http://www.courts.state.ny.us/">New York State Unified Court System</source>
<author>pyow@courts.state.ny.us</author>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

<item>
<title>Design-Defect Theory Upheld in Tobacco Suit</title>
<link>http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1186477613431</link>
<guid>http://tobacco.org/news/250912.html</guid>
<description>The daughter and husband of a woman who died of lung cancer can proceed with their lawsuit against Philip Morris and other tobacco companies under a design-defect theory and can seek punitive damages in New York state court.

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Charles E. Ramos' decisions in Fabiano v. Philip Morris, 102715/04, to allow the plaintiffs' design-defect and punitive damages claims to go forward were contrary to the findings reached one week ago by Southern District of New York Judge Charles L. Brieant, in Mulholland v. Philip Morris, 05-9908. . . .


In rejecting the tobacco company's motion to dismiss in Fabiano, Justice Ramos said that &quot;the evidence presented by plaintiffs raise issues of fact as to whether defendants acted unreasonably in designing cigarettes by refusing to adopt safer technology, on its claim for negligently designed product.&quot;</description>
<source url="http://www.law.com/">Law.com</source>
<pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2007 04:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>