$______ VERDICT - TOBACCO - PLAINTIFF CLAIMS DECEDENT DIED OF COPD AFTER SMOKING CIGARETTES MANUFACTURED AND SOLD BY DEFENDANTS WHO COMMITTED FRAUD BY CONCEALMENT, CIVIL CONSPIRACY CONCEALMENT, BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY, BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY, STRICT LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE - CASE ON APPEAL.

• Pages: 3-5

should not apply. Specifically, the defendant asserted that the services did not pertain di-

rectly to, and were not necessary for, commerce or navigation upon navigable waters, nor

did they have a direct and substantial link to the operation of a ship. Accordingly, the de-

fendant maintained that the subject case involved and arose from an inherently local state

law dispute between two parties and the business they conducted with each other on dry

land in Florida.

Conversely, the plaintiff alleged that the parties entered into a terminal service contract

that covered terminal and stevedoring services commencing on October 24, 2014. The

plaintiff argued that the defendant retained the services of the plaintiff as its exclusive con-

tractor in Broward County for the performance of any and all services related to terminal

and stevedoring operations in connection with its liner vessel trade for its weekly Central

America Service, including discharging containers from vessels; loans and stowing contain-

ers onto vessels; storage of full outbound and inbound containers; receiving and delivering

containers into and out of the terminal; providing gate lanes and manning for receipt of

containers in the yard; order sip gangs and other labor to work on carrier’s vessels;

berthing of vessels; and documentation and information.

The court found that the contract contained both maritime and non-maritime services. Spe-

cifically, stevedoring services and the “berthing of vessels” or dockage during loading and

unloading of containers was deemed clearly maritime. The remaining categories of services

provided by the plaintiff under the contract, however, the court found to be non-maritime.

The court found that the plaintiff’s transport and yard storage services were not “directly

related to the loading or unloading of a maritime vessel.” The court found that the contract

was not wholly maritime in nature and a significant portion of the contract concerned non-

maritime services. The court further found that the non-maritime elements of the contract

were central, rather than insignificant. Therefore the court granted the defendant’s motion

that the contract was not a maritime contract and, as such, federal maritime law did not

apply. The case proceeded as a standard breach of contract case.

Following the verdict, the defendant moved for the court to set aside the portion of the ver-

dict relating to the plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim and enter judgment in favor of the

defendant in accordance with the defendant’s motion for directed verdict because the plain-

tiff failed to meet its burden of proving unjust enrichment. The defendant maintained that

the evidence and all witness’ testimony acknowledged and agreed that the defendant paid

the plaintiff in full for any stevedoring and port terminal services the plaintiff provided to

the defendant during that time that the parties did business together. Further, the defen-

dant pointed to the fact that the plaintiff still has in its possession, and is using in its opera-

tions, including providing services to its other customers, the equipment and other

infrastructure improvements the plaintiff alleged it invested in order to handle the defen-

dant’s business and that the defendant did not take with it any of the plaintiff’s equipment

or other property once the parties’ relationship ended.

The court denied the defendant’s motion for new trial. The defendant has appealed that

decision and the appeal is pending.

$2,540,915 VERDICT – TOBACCO – PLAINTIFF CLAIMS

DECEDENT DIED OF COPD AFTER SMOKING

CIGARETTES MANUFACTURED AND SOLD BY

DEFENDANTS WHO COMMITTED FRAUD BY

CONCEALMENT, CIVIL CONSPIRACY CONCEALMENT,

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY, BREACH OF

EXPRESS WARRANTY, STRICT LIABILITY AND

NEGLIGENCE – CASE ON APPEAL.

Palm Beach County, FL

In this product liability case, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant

tobacco company was liable for the plaintiff’s decedent’s’ addiction

to cigarettes, the resulting health issues and his ultimate death due

to the defendants’ fraud by concealment, civil conspiracy

concealment, breach of implied warranty, breach of express

warranty, strict liability, and negligence. The defendants asserted

that the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Engle contained several

errors and denied the defendants their due process rights.

SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS 3

Florida Jury Verdict Review & Analysis

Founder

IraJ.Zarin,Esq.

President

Jed M. Zarin

Contributing Editors

Brian M. Kessler, Esq.

Michael Bagen

Laine Harmon, Esq.

Cristina N. Hyde, J.D.

Deborah McNally, Paralegal

Ruth B. Neely, Paralegal

Cathy Schlecter-Harvey, Esq.

Julie L. Singer, Esq.

Tammy A. Smith, Esq.

Kate Turnbow, Paralegal

Susan Winkler

Business Development

Gary Zarin

Production Coordinator

Cathryn A. Peyton

Professional Search

Timothy P. Mathieson

Court Data Coordinator

Jeffrey S. Zarin

Customer Services

Meredith Whelan

Circulation Manager

Ellen Loren

PublishedbyJuryVerdictReview

Publications, Inc. 45 Springfield Avenue,

Springfield, NJ 07081 www.jvra.com

Main Office:

973/376-9002 Fax 973/376-1775

Circulation & Billing Department:

973/535-6263

Florida Jury Verdict Review & Analysis is a

trademark of Jury Verdict Review

Publications, Inc.

Reproduction in any form with out the

express written permission of the publisher

is strictly prohibited by law.

Florida Jury Verdict Review & Analysis

(ISSN 1058-8604) is published monthly at

the subscription rate of $395/year by Jury

Verdict Review Publications, Inc.,

45 Springfield Avenue, Springfield, NJ 07081.

Periodical postage paid at Springfield, NJ

and at additional mailing offices.

Postmaster: Send address changes to:

Florida Jury Verdict Review & Analysis,

45 Springfield Avenue, Springfield, NJ 07081.

Subscribe Now