Bullock v. Philip Morris USA
Filed January 30, 2008
Cite as 2008 SOS 759

Decision on Punitive Damages Remanded

The issue of the case arose from a damage claim filed by Betty Bullock against giant cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris USA. Bullock, through lawyer Michael Piuze, sued the company for fraud, negligence and product liability. According to the complaint, the company tried to “conceal the danger of cigarette smoking” by denying that its products were harmful.

Bullock, who started smoking at a young age, is currently suffering from lung cancer. She believes her illness is the result of this erroneous advertising scheme. As part of this scheme, Piuze charged, the company also  “carefully avoided conducting or sponsoring research that might reveal the health hazards of smoking and concealed the results of research conducted overseas on its behalf”. Further, it also “sought to maintain the false controversy and to make its cigarettes more addictive to increase its sale”.

On the other hand, Philip Morris did not answer the allegations but instead asked Bullock to prove that the company’s wrongful conduct was the cause of her injuries.

In August 2002, the case went to trial and eventually, the jury issued a special verdict which found the following:

• That there was a defect in the design of the cigarette


• The cigarette was negligently designed


• The cigarette company failed to adequately warn Bullock of the dangers of smoking before the year 1969 or before the warning labels were required


• That it misrepresented and concealed material facts


• That it made a false promise

As a result, the cigarette was found guilty of “oppression, fraud, or malice”. The jury awarded Bullock $850,000 in compensatory damages, $100,000 in non-economic damages and $28 million in punitive damages.

Philip Morris appealed the decision, especially contending the amount of punitive damages imposed by the jury.

In reviewing the case, the Second Appellate court found that the trial court erroneously rejected proposed instruction barring jurors from imposing punitive damages on basis of harm done to persons other than plaintiff.

Further, the court of appeal ruled that defendant was entitled to new trial on punitive damages based on the following grounds:

• Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1969 (FCLA), while preempting claims "based on smoking and health," did not preempt plaintiff’s fraud-related claims and did not bar admission of evidence of defendant’s post-1969 advertising that was probative on the intent-to-defraud and reliance elements of plaintiff’s non preempted claims.


• FCLA precludes liability for punitive damages for acts committed prior to its effectivity but not to subsequent acts. Hence, instruction that would have precluded liability for punitive damages based on youth targeting activities regardless of date was erroneous and was properly rejected.

The Second District court of appeal therefore resolved that the case be remanded to the trial court to allow defendant a new trial on punitive damages.