Common use of Xxxxxxxx Tobacco Co Clause in Contracts

Xxxxxxxx Tobacco Co. a case filed in December 2007, in the Circuit Court, Alachua County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found RJR Tobacco to be 40% at fault, the decedent, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, to be 60% at fault, and awarded $5 million in compensatory damages and no punitive damages. The plaintiff alleged that the decedent was addicted to cigarettes and, as a result, developed lung cancer and other smoking-related conditions and/or diseases, and sought in excess of $15,000 in compensatory damages. Final judgment was entered against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $2 million. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the First DCA in July 2011. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of cross appeal and posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $2 million. In October 2012, the First DCA affirmed the trial court’s ruling in full. On the direct appeal, the court held that only intentional torts could support a punitive damages claim and held that Xxxxx Progeny plaintiffs may not seek punitive damages for negligence or strict liability because the original Xxxxx class did not seek punitive damages for those claims. The First DCA certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court as one of great public importance. On the cross appeal, the court rejected RJR Tobacco’s arguments about the use of the Xxxxx findings and the statute of limitations. RJR Tobacco filed a motion for rehearing or for certification to the Florida Supreme Court and the plaintiff filed a motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc. In January 2013, the First DCA granted rehearing on RJR Tobacco’s cross appeal to clarify that the trial court’s application of Xxxxx findings did not violate RJR Tobacco’s due process rights. Otherwise, rehearing, rehearing en banc and certification were denied. RJR Tobacco and the plaintiff both filed notices to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court. In February 2014, the Florida Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction of RJR Tobacco’s petition for review and accepted the plaintiff’s petition for review requesting the Florida Supreme Court review the decision of the First DCA. Oral argument is scheduled for December 4, 2014.

Xxxxxxxx Tobacco Co. a and the related Xxxxx Progeny cases; and the case filed in December 2007brought by the U.S. Department of Justice under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, in the Circuit Court, Alachua County, Floridareferred to as RICO. In 2000, a jury returned in Xxxxx x. Xxxxxxx Group, a class action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers by Florida smokers allegedly harmed by their addiction to nicotine, rendered a $145 billion punitive damages verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found RJR Tobacco to be 40% at fault, the decedent, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, to be 60% at fault, and awarded $5 million in compensatory damages and no punitive damages. The plaintiff alleged that the decedent was addicted to cigarettes and, as a result, developed lung cancer and other smoking-related conditions and/or diseases, and sought in excess of $15,000 in compensatory damages. Final judgment was entered against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $2 million. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the First DCA in July 2011. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of cross appeal and posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $2 millionclass. In October 20122006, the First DCA affirmed the trial court’s ruling in full. On the direct appeal, the court held that only intentional torts could support a punitive damages claim and held that Xxxxx Progeny plaintiffs may not seek punitive damages for negligence or strict liability because the original Xxxxx class did not seek punitive damages for those claims. The First DCA certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court set aside that award, prospectively decertified the class, and preserved several of the Xxxxx jury findings for use in subsequent individual actions to be filed within one year of its decision. The preserved findings include jury determinations that smoking causes various diseases, that nicotine is addictive, and that each defendant sold cigarettes that were defective and unreasonably dangerous, committed unspecified acts of negligence and individually and jointly concealed unspecified information about the health risks of smoking. In the wake of Xxxxx, thousands of individual progeny actions were filed in federal and state courts in Florida. Such actions are commonly referred to as one “Xxxxx Progeny” cases. As of great public importanceDecember 12, 2014, 806 Xxxxx Progeny cases were pending in federal court, and 3,194 of them were pending in state court. On These cases include approximately 5,084 plaintiffs. In addition, as of Xxxxxxxx 00, 0000, XXX Xxxxxxx was aware of 16 additional Xxxxx Progeny cases that had been filed but not served. One hundred nineteen Xxxxx Progeny cases have been tried in Florida state and federal courts since 2011, and numerous state court trials are scheduled for 2015. The number of pending cases fluctuates for a variety of reasons, including voluntary and involuntary dismissals. Voluntary dismissals include cases in which a plaintiff accepts an “offer of judgment,” referred to in Florida statutes as “proposals for settlement,” from RJR Tobacco and/or its affiliates. An offer of judgment, if rejected by the cross appealplaintiff, the court rejected preserves RJR Tobacco’s arguments about right to recover attorneys’ fees under Florida law in the event of a verdict favorable to RJR Tobacco. Such offers are sometimes made through court-ordered mediations. In Xxxxx Progeny cases tried to date, a central issue has been the proper use of the preserved Xxxxx findings. RJR Tobacco has argued that use of the Xxxxx findings to establish individual elements of progeny claims (such as defect, negligence and the statute concealment) is a violation of limitationsfederal due process. RJR Tobacco filed a motion for rehearing or for certification to In 2013, however, both the Florida Supreme Court and the plaintiff filed a motion U.S. Court of Appeals for rehearing or rehearing en bancthe Eleventh Circuit, referred to as the Eleventh Circuit, rejected that argument. In January 2013addition to this global due process argument, RJR Tobacco raises many other factual and legal defenses as appropriate in each case. These defenses may include, among other things, arguing that the First DCA granted rehearing plaintiff is not a proper member of the Xxxxx class, that the plaintiff did not rely on RJR Tobacco’s cross appeal to clarify any statements by any tobacco company, that the trial courtwas conducted unfairly, that some or all claims are preempted or barred by applicable statutes of limitation or statutes of repose, or that any injury was caused by the smoker’s application of Xxxxx findings did not violate RJR Tobacco’s due process rights. Otherwise, rehearing, rehearing en banc and certification were denied. RJR Tobacco and the plaintiff both filed notices to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court. In February 2014, the Florida Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction of RJR Tobacco’s petition for review and accepted the plaintiff’s petition for review requesting the Florida Supreme Court review the decision of the First DCA. Oral argument is scheduled for December 4, 2014own conduct.

Xxxxxxxx Tobacco Co. a and the related Xxxxx Progeny cases, the Louisiana state court class-action case, Xxxxx x. American Tobacco Co., and the case filed in December 2007brought by the U.S. Department of Justice under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, in the Circuit Court, Alachua County, Floridareferred to as RICO. In 2000, a jury returned in Xxxxx rendered a punitive damages verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found RJR Tobacco to be 40% at fault, the decedent, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, to be 60% at fault, and awarded “Florida class” of approximately $5 million in compensatory damages and no punitive damages. The plaintiff alleged that the decedent was addicted to cigarettes and, as a result, developed lung cancer and other smoking-related conditions and/or diseases, and sought in excess of $15,000 in compensatory damages. Final judgment was entered 145 billion against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $2 million. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the First DCA in July 2011. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of cross appeal and posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $2 millionall defendants. In October 2012July 2006, the First DCA affirmed the trial court’s ruling in full. On the direct appeal, the court held that only intentional torts could support a punitive damages claim and held that Xxxxx Progeny plaintiffs may not seek punitive damages for negligence or strict liability because the original Xxxxx class did not seek punitive damages for those claims. The First DCA certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court as one of great public importance. On the cross appeal, the court rejected RJR Tobacco’s arguments about the use of the Xxxxx findings and the statute of limitations. RJR Tobacco filed a motion for rehearing or for certification to the Florida Supreme Court and the plaintiff filed a motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc. In January 2013, the First DCA granted rehearing on RJR Tobacco’s cross appeal to clarify that the trial court’s application of Xxxxx findings did not violate RJR Tobacco’s due process rights. Otherwise, rehearing, rehearing en banc and certification were denied. RJR Tobacco and the plaintiff both filed notices to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court, among other things, affirmed an appellate court’s reversal of the punitive damages award, decertified the class going forward, preserved several class-wide findings from the trial, including that nicotine is addictive and cigarettes are defectively designed, and authorized class members to avail themselves of these findings in individual lawsuits under certain conditions. In February 2014After subsequent motions were resolved, the Florida Supreme Court declined issued its mandate on January 11, 2007, thus beginning a one-year period in which former class members were permitted to accept jurisdiction of RJR Tobacco’s file individual lawsuits. In October 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the defendants’ petition for review writ of certiorari. Individual Xxxxx Progeny cases are pending in both federal and accepted state court in Florida. As of December 31, 2011, 3,246 cases were pending in federal court, and 3,315 cases were pending in state court. These cases include approximately 7,852 plaintiffs. The number of cases will likely change due to individual plaintiffs being severed from multi-plaintiff cases and multi-plaintiff federal cases being dismissed or consolidated. In addition, as of Xxxxxxxx 00, 0000, XXX Xxxxxxx was aware of 46 additional cases that had been filed but not served (with 319 plaintiffs). Fifty-seven trials have occurred in Florida state court since 2009, and numerous state court trials are scheduled for 2012. As Xxxxx Progeny litigation has progressed, the plaintiff’s petition federal and state court systems have adopted different rules to govern those cases, and both have courts issuing conflicting opinions. For example, in Xxxxxxx Xxxxx v. X. X. Xxxxxxxx Tobacco Co., the U.S. Court of Appeals for review requesting the Florida Supreme Court review Eleventh Circuit, referred to as the Eleventh Circuit, held that the preserved Xxxxx findings establish only those issues “actually adjudicated” in the Xxxxx class trial. In other words, based on the decision in Xxxxxxx Xxxxx, the Xxxxx findings would not prevent RJR Tobacco and other defendants from raising issues and defenses that were not, or may not have been, resolved against them in Xxxxx. The court further held that an Xxxxx Progeny plaintiff bears the burden of showing, to a “reasonable degree of certainty,” that any issue the plaintiff seeks to treat as established in his favor was, in fact, actually raised and resolved in Xxxxx. The court held that these standards were required by Florida preclusion law, and it reserved judgment on the question of whether the same standards were also required by the Due Process Clause of the First DCAU.S. Constitution. Oral argument is scheduled for December 4Prior to the Eleventh Circuit decision in Xxxxxxx Xxxxx, 2014three federal district court judges (including the judge in Xxxxxxx Xxxxx) concluded that any broader use of the preserved Xxxxx findings would violate both Florida preclusion law and federal due process.

Xxxxxxxx Tobacco Co. a and the related Xxxxx Progeny cases; and the case filed in December 2007brought by the U.S. Department of Justice under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, in the Circuit Court, Alachua County, Floridareferred to as RICO. In 2000, a jury returned in Xxxxx x. Xxxxxxx Group, a class-action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers by Florida smokers allegedly harmed by their addiction to nicotine, rendered a $145 billion punitive damages verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found RJR Tobacco to be 40% at fault, the decedent, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, to be 60% at fault, and awarded $5 million in compensatory damages and no punitive damages. The plaintiff alleged that the decedent was addicted to cigarettes and, as a result, developed lung cancer and other smoking-related conditions and/or diseases, and sought in excess of $15,000 in compensatory damages. Final judgment was entered against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $2 million. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the First DCA in July 2011. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of cross appeal and posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $2 millionclass. In October 2012, the First DCA affirmed the trial court’s ruling in full. On the direct appeal, the court held that only intentional torts could support a punitive damages claim and held that Xxxxx Progeny plaintiffs may not seek punitive damages for negligence or strict liability because the original Xxxxx class did not seek punitive damages for those claims. The First DCA certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court as one of great public importance. On the cross appeal, the court rejected RJR Tobacco’s arguments about the use of the Xxxxx findings and the statute of limitations. RJR Tobacco filed a motion for rehearing or for certification to the Florida Supreme Court and the plaintiff filed a motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc. In January 2013, the First DCA granted rehearing on RJR Tobacco’s cross appeal to clarify that the trial court’s application of Xxxxx findings did not violate RJR Tobacco’s due process rights. Otherwise, rehearing, rehearing en banc and certification were denied. RJR Tobacco and the plaintiff both filed notices to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court. In February 20142006, the Florida Supreme Court declined set aside that award, prospectively decertified the class, and preserved several of the Xxxxx jury findings for use in subsequent individual actions to accept jurisdiction be filed within one year of its decision. The preserved findings include jury determinations that smoking causes various diseases, that nicotine is addictive, and that each defendant sold cigarettes that were defective and unreasonably dangerous, committed unspecified acts of negligence and individually and jointly concealed unspecified information about the health risks of smoking. The Xxxxx findings do not indicate that all cigarettes sold by each defendant were defective and unreasonably dangerous, nor do they specify what acts of negligence each defendant committed, or what information each defendant concealed. In the wake of Xxxxx, thousands of individual progeny actions were filed in federal and state courts in Florida. Such actions are referred to as the Xxxxx Progeny cases. As of September 30, 2013, 1,961 cases were pending in federal court, and 3,226 cases were pending in state court. These cases include approximately 6,344 plaintiffs. In addition, as of Xxxxxxxxx 00, 0000, XXX Xxxxxxx was aware of 17 additional cases that had been filed but not served. One hundred and four cases have been tried in Florida state and federal courts since 2010, and numerous state court trials are scheduled for late 2013 and early 2014. The number of pending cases fluctuates for a variety of reasons, including voluntary and involuntary dismissals. Voluntary dismissals include cases in which a plaintiff accepts an “offer of judgment,” referred to in Florida statutes as “proposals for settlement,” from RJR Tobacco and/or its affiliates. An offer of judgment, if rejected by the plaintiff, preserves RJR Tobacco’s petition for review right to recover attorneys’ fees under Florida law in the event of a favorable verdict and accepted the plaintiff’s petition for review requesting the Florida Supreme Court review the decision of the First DCA. Oral argument is scheduled for December 4, 2014sometimes made through court-ordered mediations.

Xxxxxxxx Tobacco Co. a and the related Xxxxx Progeny cases; and the case filed in December 2007brought by the U.S. Department of Justice under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, in the Circuit Court, Alachua County, Floridareferred to as RICO. In 2000, a jury returned in Xxxxx x. Xxxxxxx Group, a class action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers by Florida smokers allegedly harmed by their addiction to nicotine, rendered a $145 billion punitive damages verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found RJR Tobacco to be 40% at fault, the decedent, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, to be 60% at fault, and awarded $5 million in compensatory damages and no punitive damages. The plaintiff alleged that the decedent was addicted to cigarettes and, as a result, developed lung cancer and other smoking-related conditions and/or diseases, and sought in excess of $15,000 in compensatory damages. Final judgment was entered against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $2 million. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the First DCA in July 2011. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of cross appeal and posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $2 millionclass. In October 20122006, the First DCA affirmed the trial court’s ruling in full. On the direct appeal, the court held that only intentional torts could support a punitive damages claim and held that Xxxxx Progeny plaintiffs may not seek punitive damages for negligence or strict liability because the original Xxxxx class did not seek punitive damages for those claims. The First DCA certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court set aside that award, prospectively decertified the class, and preserved several of the Xxxxx jury findings for use in subsequent individual actions to be filed within one year of its decision. The preserved findings include jury determinations that smoking causes various diseases, that nicotine is addictive, and that each defendant sold cigarettes that were defective and unreasonably dangerous, committed unspecified acts of negligence and individually and jointly concealed unspecified information about the health risks of smoking. In the wake of Xxxxx, thousands of individual progeny actions were filed in federal and state courts in Florida. Such actions are commonly referred to as one “Xxxxx Progeny” cases. As of great public importanceSeptember 17, 2014, 947 Xxxxx Progeny cases were pending in federal court, and 3,124 of them were pending in state court. On These cases include approximately 5,172 plaintiffs. In addition, as of Xxxxxxxxx 00, 0000, XXX Xxxxxxx was aware of 16 additional Xxxxx Progeny cases that had been filed but not served. One hundred nine Xxxxx Progeny cases have been tried in Florida state and federal courts since 2011 through September 17, 2014, and numerous state court trials are scheduled for 2014. The number of pending cases fluctuates for a variety of reasons, including voluntary and involuntary dismissals. Voluntary dismissals include cases in which a plaintiff accepts an “offer of judgment,” referred to in Florida statutes as “proposals for settlement,” from RJR Tobacco and/or its affiliates. An offer of judgment, if rejected by the cross appealplaintiff, the court rejected preserves RJR Tobacco’s arguments about right to recover attorneys’ fees under Florida law in the event of a verdict favorable to RJR Tobacco. Such offers are sometimes made through court-ordered mediations. In Xxxxx Progeny cases tried to date, a central issue has been the proper use of the preserved Xxxxx findings. RJR Tobacco has argued that use of the Xxxxx findings to establish individual elements of progeny claims (such as defect, negligence and the statute concealment) is a violation of limitationsfederal due process. RJR Tobacco filed a motion for rehearing or for certification to In 2013, however, both the Florida Supreme Court and the plaintiff filed a motion U.S. Court of Appeals for rehearing or rehearing en bancthe Eleventh Circuit, referred to as the Eleventh Circuit, rejected that argument. In January 2013addition to this global due process argument, RJR Tobacco raises many other factual and legal defenses as appropriate in each case. These defenses may include, among other things, arguing that the First DCA granted rehearing plaintiff is not a proper member of the Xxxxx class, that the plaintiff did not rely on RJR Tobacco’s cross appeal to clarify any statements by any tobacco company, that the trial courtwas conducted unfairly, that some or all claims are barred by applicable statutes of limitation or statutes of repose, or that any injury was caused by the smoker’s application of own conduct. Twenty-four Xxxxx findings did not violate RJR Tobacco’s due process rightsProgeny cases have become final through September 17, 2014. Otherwise, rehearing, rehearing en banc and certification were denied. These cases resulted in aggregate payments by RJR Tobacco of $186.4 million ($140.1 million for compensatory and the plaintiff both filed notices to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction punitive damages and $46.3 million for attorneys’ fees and statutory interest). On October 3, 2014, a payment of $11.9 million ($10 million for compensatory and punitive damages and $1.9 million for attorneys’ fees and statutory interest) will be made in satisfaction of the Florida Supreme Courtadverse judgment in the Xxxxxxxx case, described below. In February The following chart reflects verdicts in all individual Xxxxx Progeny cases, pending as of September 17, 2014, in which a verdict has been returned against RJR Tobacco or B&W, or both, and has not been set aside on appeal. This chart does not include the Florida Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction mistrials or verdicts returned in favor of RJR Tobacco’s petition for review and accepted the plaintiff’s petition for review requesting the Florida Supreme Court review the decision Tobacco or B&W, or both. Plaintiff Case Name RJR Tobacco Allocation of the First DCA. Oral argument is scheduled for December 4, 2014.Fault Compensatory Damages (as adjusted)(1) Punitive Damages Appeal Status

Xxxxxxxx Tobacco Co. a case filed in December 2007, in the Circuit Court, Alachua County, Florida, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, however they refused to award compensatory or punitive damages and found RJR Tobacco the plaintiff to be 4091% at fault. The case was filed in November 2007, in the decedentCircuit Court, Xxxxxxx XxxxxxPalm Beach County, to be 60% at fault, and awarded $5 million in compensatory damages and no punitive damagesFlorida. The plaintiff alleged that the decedent was addicted to cigarettes and, as a resultresult of using the defendants’ tobacco products, the decedent, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, developed lung cancer and other smokingsmoking related diseases and/or medical conditions. The plaintiff will likely file post-related conditions and/or diseasestrial motions. RJR Tobacco, B&W and sought other cigarette manufacturer defendants settled Broin v. Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, Inc. in excess October 1997. This case had been brought in Florida state court on behalf of flight attendants alleged to have suffered from diseases or ailments caused by exposure to ETS in airplane cabins. The settlement agreement required the participating tobacco companies to pay a total of $15,000 300 million in compensatory damagesthree annual $100 million installments, allocated among the companies by market share, to fund research on the early detection and cure of diseases associated with tobacco smoke. Final judgment was entered against RJR Tobacco in the amount It also required those companies to pay a total of $2 49 million for the plaintiffs’ counsel’s fees and expenses. RJR Tobacco’s portion of these payments was approximately $86 million; B&W’s portion of these payments was approximately $57 million. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal settlement agreement bars class members from bringing aggregate claims or obtaining punitive damages and also bars individual claims to the First DCA extent that they are based on fraud, misrepresentation, conspiracy to commit fraud or misrepresentation, RICO, suppression, concealment or any other alleged intentional or willful conduct. The defendants agreed that, in July 2011. RJR Tobacco filed any individual case brought by a notice of cross appeal and posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $2 million. In October 2012class member, the First DCA affirmed defendant will bear the trial courtburden of proof with respect to whether ETS can cause certain specifically enumerated diseases, referred to as “general causation.” With respect to all other issues relating to liability, including whether an individual plaintiff’s ruling disease was caused by his or her exposure to ETS in fullairplane cabins, referred to as “specific causation,” the individual plaintiff will have the burden of proof. On the direct appealSeptember 7, the court held that only intentional torts could support a punitive damages claim and held that Xxxxx Progeny plaintiffs may not seek punitive damages for negligence or strict liability because the original Xxxxx class did not seek punitive damages for those claims. The First DCA certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court as one of great public importance. On the cross appeal, the court rejected RJR Tobacco’s arguments about the use of the Xxxxx findings and the statute of limitations. RJR Tobacco filed a motion for rehearing or for certification to the Florida Supreme Court and the plaintiff filed a motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc. In January 2013, the First DCA granted rehearing on RJR Tobacco’s cross appeal to clarify that the trial court’s application of Xxxxx findings did not violate RJR Tobacco’s due process rights. Otherwise, rehearing, rehearing en banc and certification were denied. RJR Tobacco and the plaintiff both filed notices to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Florida Supreme Court. In February 20141999, the Florida Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction of RJR Tobacco’s petition for review and accepted approved the plaintiff’s petition for review requesting the Florida Supreme Court review the decision settlement. The Broin II cases arose out of the First DCAsettlement of this case. Oral argument On October 5, 2000, the Broin court entered an order applicable to all Broin II cases that the terms of the Broin settlement agreement do not require the individual Broin II plaintiffs to prove the elements of strict liability, breach of warranty or negligence. Under this order, there is scheduled for December 4a rebuttable presumption in the plaintiffs’ favor on those elements, 2014and the plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that their alleged adverse health effects actually were caused by exposure to ETS in airplane cabins, that is, specific causation. As of June 30, 2011, there were 2,588 Broin II lawsuits pending in Florida. There have been no Broin II trials since 2007.

Xxxxxxxx Tobacco Co. a and the related Xxxxx Progeny cases; the Louisiana state court class-action case, Xxxxx x. American Tobacco Co.; and the case filed in December 2007brought by the U.S. Department of Justice under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, in the Circuit Court, Alachua County, Floridareferred to as RICO. In 2000, a jury returned in Xxxxx , a class action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, rendered a $145 billion punitive damages verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found RJR Tobacco a class of Florida smokers allegedly harmed by their addiction to be 40% at fault, the decedent, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, to be 60% at fault, and awarded $5 million in compensatory damages and no punitive damages. The plaintiff alleged that the decedent was addicted to cigarettes and, as a result, developed lung cancer and other smoking-related conditions and/or diseases, and sought in excess of $15,000 in compensatory damages. Final judgment was entered against RJR Tobacco in the amount of $2 million. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the First DCA in July 2011. RJR Tobacco filed a notice of cross appeal and posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of $2 millionnicotine. In October 20122006, the First DCA affirmed the trial court’s ruling in full. On the direct appeal, the court held that only intentional torts could support a punitive damages claim and held that Xxxxx Progeny plaintiffs may not seek punitive damages for negligence or strict liability because the original Xxxxx class did not seek punitive damages for those claims. The First DCA certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court reversed that award, decertified the Xxxxx class, and preserved several of the Xxxxx findings for use in subsequent individual actions to be filed within one year of its decision. The preserved Xxxxx findings include jury determinations that smoking causes various diseases, that nicotine is addictive, and that each defendant sold cigarettes that were defective and unreasonably dangerous. The Xxxxx findings do not indicate that all cigarettes sold by each defendant were defective and unreasonably dangerous. Thousands of individual progeny actions were filed in federal and state courts in Florida. As of December 31, 2012, 2,443 cases were pending in federal court, and 3,313 cases were pending in state court. These cases include approximately 6,937 plaintiffs. In addition, as one of great public importanceXxxxxxxx 00, 0000, XXX Xxxxxxx was aware of 45 additional cases that had been filed but not served. On Seventy-nine cases have been tried in Florida state and federal courts since 2010, and numerous state court trials are scheduled for 2013. The number of pending cases fluctuates for a variety of reasons, including voluntary and involuntary dismissals. Voluntary dismissals include cases in which a plaintiff accepts an “offer of judgment,” referred to in Florida statutes as “proposals for settlement,” from RJR Tobacco and/or its affiliates. An offer of judgment, if rejected by the cross appealplaintiff, the court rejected preserves RJR Tobacco’s arguments about right to recover attorneys’ fees under Florida law in the event of a favorable verdict and is sometimes made through court-ordered mediations. In each Xxxxx Progeny case, a central issue is the proper use of the Xxxxx findings and the statute of limitations. RJR Tobacco filed a motion for rehearing or for certification to the Florida Supreme Court and the plaintiff filed a motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc. In January 2013, the First DCA granted rehearing on RJR Tobacco’s cross appeal to clarify that the trial court’s application of Xxxxx findings did not violate RJR Tobacco’s due process rights. Otherwise, rehearing, rehearing en banc and certification were denied. RJR Tobacco and the plaintiff both filed notices to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of preserved by the Florida Supreme Court. In February 2014The federal and state courts that have addressed the question have adopted conflicting views. For example, in Xxxxxxx Xxxxx v. X. X. Xxxxxxxx Tobacco Co ., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, referred to as the Eleventh Circuit, held that the preserved Xxxxx findings establish only those issues “actually adjudicated” in the Xxxxx class trial. In other words, those findings would not prevent RJR Tobacco and other defendants from raising issues and defenses that were not, or may not have been, resolved against them in Xxxxx . The court further held that an Xxxxx Progeny plaintiff bears the burden of showing, to a “reasonable degree of certainty,” that any issue the plaintiff seeks to treat as established in his favor was, in fact, actually decided in Xxxxx . The court held that these standards were required by Florida Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction of RJR Tobacco’s petition for review preclusion law, and accepted it reserved judgment on whether the plaintiff’s petition for review requesting same standards were also required by the Florida Supreme Court review the decision Due Process Clause of the First DCAU.S. Constitution. Oral argument is scheduled for December 4Prior to the Eleventh Circuit decision in Xxxxxxx Xxxxx , 2014three federal district court judges had concluded that any broader use of the preserved Xxxxx findings would violate both Florida preclusion law and federal due process.