SHARE:
This Land Is My Land
Taking On Tobacco, One Case At A Time
Lawyers at Jacksonville's Spohrer Wilner Maxwell Maciejewski & Stanford gained national attention in August when a jury awarded their cancer-stricken client $750,000 in a suit against cigarette maker Brown & Williamson.
But partners at the litigation boutique also know they've got to win more such verdicts in order to make their bold strategy pay off. Bucking a nationwide trend toward class actions, the firm invested heavily in several hundred suits on behalf of individual smokers in Jacksonville, West Palm Beach and Tampa.
Winning probably won't become any easier for the foreseeable future, however. One reason: The firm's next few trials come against companies that are regarded as tougher opponents than Brown & Williamson. B&W, maker of Lucky Strike, was saddled with authorship of some of the most incriminating internal documents that have surfaced in recent years, showing that the company knew about tobacco's addictive qualities but did nothing about it.
In addition, the firm's first client, Grady Carter of Orange Park, was a nearly ideal plaintiff because of his long loyalty to one brand and his longtime residence in Florida, where product liability rules are favorable. Other Spohrer Wilner plaintiffs won't present all those advantages.
As of late summer, the next trial was scheduled to begin October 14 in Jacksonville. It pitted a cancer-stricken railroad dispatcher, James Clark, against Liggett Group, maker of the L&M cigarettes that Clark began smoking in 1968.
"Mr. Clark's case is going to be challenging," admits Gregory Maxwell, who handled the Carter trial along with partner Norwood Wilner. But Maxwell insists that all the companies have the same basic problems mounting an effective defense.
"We think they're all vulnerable," he says.
Auto Liability Coverage
Few car and truck owners in the state are aware that liability coverage they buy from insurance companies excludes family members injured in traffic accidents. But the days of the widely used "family exclusion clause" in Florida auto insurance contracts may be numbered. A three-judge panel of the 5th District Court of Appeal in Orlando recently upheld the clause in an auto accident case - but expressed strong misgivings about it.
The family exclusion clause prevents family members from receiving benefits under a negligent driver's auto liability policy. The effect of the clause "may well be to shift the costs of caring for persons injured in motor accidents back onto the public," warned Judge Winifred Sharp.
Lawyer Todd Copeland of Orlando's Bogin, Munns & Munns brought that case to the 5th District Court of Appeal on behalf of an injured spouse. He says he hopes the case will inspire the Florida Supreme Court or the Legislature to do away with the family exclusion clause because it "keeps people from protecting the people we most want protected: our families."
The family exclusion clause dates back to the days of spousal immunity, a common-law doctrine that generally prevented husbands and wives from suing each other for personal injuries. In 1993, the Florida Supreme Court followed the lead of other states and abrogated this principle of law.
But since then, Florida courts have been slow to invalidate contract provisions like the family exclusion clause. With regard to auto insurance contracts, for example, family members of a negligent driver have little incentive to sue the insurer for accident-related damages if the policy has a family exclusion clause.
Copeland suggests that although the clause was upheld by the judges of the 5th DCA, a higher court may abolish it. He says the 5th District judges "wanted to do away with the doctrine, but just didn't feel it was their place."
Business Beat - Week of May 3rd
