Linda Prentice v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company

Summary

The court held that an Engle progeny plaintiff asserting fraudulent concealment or concealment conspiracy must prove reliance on a statement by an Engle defendant or co-conspirator that concealed or omitted material information about smoking's health effects or addictiveness. Reliance on silence, a bare omission, or a conspiracy itself is insufficient, although the statement need not be an individually identified advertisement and may consist of a category of statements. The court approved the First District's decision and held that the jury instruction allowing reliance on the conspiracy or acts in furtherance of it was erroneous and prejudicial. Justice Labarga, dissenting, would have allowed reliance to be inferred from the tobacco industry's pervasive misleading advertising and the smoker's history.