Back to previous page
Philip Morris USA Says Mississippi Ruling In Step With Law; Third-Party Tobacco Litigation Essentially Over
NEW YORK (March 18, 2004) - Philip Morris USA said a decision today by the Mississippi Supreme Court that upholds the dismissal of a lawsuit by Owens Corning Inc. against the company and other major cigarette makers is in line with established law. The company said the decision could mark the end of major third-party litigation against the tobacco industry.
"Today's decision by the Mississippi Supreme Court follows an essentially unbroken line of cases dating back more than 200 years," said William S. Ohlemeyer, Philip Morris USA vice president and associate general counsel. "Although this area of the law has been tested by tobacco plaintiffs' lawyers over recent years, the law has held, and the real winner is our system of civil justice."
"The law considers these claims to be indirect,' and overwhelmingly the courts have dismissed these kinds of cases," Ohlemeyer said.
Ohlemeyer also noted that in the very few instances where Philip Morris USA has proceeded to trial in these so-called "indirect claims," it has successfully defeated the multi-billion dollar damages claims.
Today's decision came in an appeal by Owens Corning of a May 2001 decision by Jefferson Circuit Judge Lamar Pickard dismissing the asbestos company's claims against Philip Morris USA and the nation's major tobacco companies.
Owens Corning filed suit seeking to recover a portion of the payments it has made or expects to make to hundreds of thousands of people who claim that asbestos exposure left them ill or likely to contract lung disease.
In its opinion, the Supreme Court found that "nine federal courts of appeals and several state appellate courts have weighed this issue and have rejected claims similar to Owens Corning's.
"The plaintiffs in these cases have included insurance companies, public hospitals, unions, health benefit funds, and other health care providers who sued tobacco companies to recover money expended to provide medical treatment to their plan participants for tobacco-related illnesses.
"In all of these cases, regardless of the theory of liability, the courts have determined that injuries to these provider plaintiffs were either too remote to be compensable or were not proximately caused by the defendant's conduct."
The Court also dismissed Owens Corning's antitrust claim against the tobacco companies because it concluded there was no antitrust injury.
