SALOZZO v. WAGNER SPRAY TECH CORP., 578 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
In 1991, the firm secured a reversal from the Third District Court of Appeal, which held that expert testimony was not required to permit a jury conclusion that warnings provided on a spray gun were inadequate, improperly located, or both.
R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO. v. REESE, 139 So. 3d 900 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
In 2013, the firm secured a per curiam affirmance of a $1,066,000 verdict entered against a cigarette manufacturer who contracted laryngeal cancer.
R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO. v. WILLIAMS, 183 So. 3d 408 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
In 2014, the firm won an appeal before the Third District Court of Appeal, which affirmed a $5 million verdict awarded in an Engle progeny case to the estate of a smoker who developed oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma and died.
PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC. v. CUCULINO, 165 So. 3d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)
In 2015, the firm won an appeal before the Third District Court of Appeal, which affirmed a final judgment entered after a $12.5 million jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff in an Engle-progeny case
R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO. v. HUBBIRD, 194 So. 3d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
In 2016, the firm secured a per curiam affirmance of a $28 million judgment against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. in a product liability case involving a deceased man who smoked Lucky Strike, Viceroy, and Winston cigarettes from 1945 to 1993.
MAZZONI FARMS, INC. v. E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO., 761 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2000)
In 2000, the firm prevailed in an appeal before the Florida Supreme Court in Mazzoni Farms, a case in which the firm represented commercial plant nurseries who alleged that Benlate, a fungicide produced by DuPont, caused mass destruction to their trees and plants. The Court held that releases signed by these commercial plant nurseries did not bar them from suing DuPont for fraudulently inducing them into settling their products liability and fraud claims.
AUBIN v. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, 177 So. 3d 489 (Fla. 2015)
In 2015, the firm prevailed in a monumental appeal before the Florida Supreme Court in Aubin. The Court’s seminal Aubin decision rejected the defense-friendly Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability, and made clear that Florida courts must follow the more neutral Restatement (Second) of Torts: Products Liability. As a result, Florida consumers may now prove that a product was “defectively designed” simply by showing that it failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect. This ruling did away with the prior standard requiring Florida consumers to establish that a “reasonable alternative design” existed. In addition, the Court held that the widely asserted “learned intermediary” defense to failure-to-warn claims is “not a complete defense,” but rather is subject to a fact-intensive reasonableness assessment. Based on these holdings, the Court reinstated the $14 million jury verdict secured by the firm.