Philip Morris Challenges Florida’s Anti-Tobacco Law

Philip Morris is challenging what is considered the nation’s toughest anti-tobacco law on grounds it is unconstitutional and was rammed through the state Legislature by a cabal of greedy lawyers.

“These attorneys stand to gain financially from the act as much or more than the state,” says the lawsuit filed by the cigarette maker and other businesses late Thursday, the day before the law took effect.

The law allows the state to sue tobacco companies for the costs of treating Medicaid patients who have lung cancer, emphysema or other smoking-related illnesses.

The state has spent an estimated $1.2 billion to treat Medicaid patients with smoking-related illnesses since 1989.

The law, signed by Gov. Lawton Chiles last month, also prohibits companies from arguing that some of the blame rests with the smoker. It allows courts to impose judgments based on the companies’ market share rather than their percentage of fault.

“It’s typical of those acts that pass without proper deliberation,” said Barry Richard, a lawyer who represents those filing suit. “In a lot of minds, it was drafted to do one thing. In effect, it does much more.”

The suit claims the law is unconstitional and arbitrary, and could expose virtually any industry to a lawsuit.

Chiles spokesman Ron Sachs said Friday that the law will be used to sue only the tobacco industry.

“A challenge was anticipated and it will be defended,” Sachs said.

Joining Philip Morris Inc. in the lawsuit were Publix Supermarkets Inc., the National Assn. of Convenience Stores, and Associated Industries of Florida, one of the state’s top business lobbying groups.

Messages seeking comment were not returned Friday from the offices and homes of officials with Publix, Philip Morris and Associated Industries.

The lawsuit accuses a group of about 100 trial lawyers that it called the “inner circle” of masterminding the legislation and helping steer it through the state’s House and Senate.

“There was no public notice, no legislative debate and no meaningful explanation of the amendment’s contents,” the lawsuit says. “Both houses passed the act unanimously, with only the act’s few drafters and sponsors having an understanding of its actual content.”

The suit says the law would benefit trial lawyers because it allows the state to enter into agreements with private attorneys and pay them up to 30% of the amount it collects in a successful lawsuit.