Minnesota Court Reinstates
'Lights' Class Action
Although another class action tobacco case has been OK'd for trial,
we still believe it will be hard to prove Philip Morris misled plaintiffs,
or that they suffered common harm.
In a mildly surprising development, Judge Allen Oleisky of the
4th District Court in Minneapolis reversed his ruling earlier this
year and recently granted class certification to a lawsuit brought
by smokers in Minnesota.
In the case, Curtis v. Philip Morris Cos., smokers argued that
Philip Morris misled the public regarding the dangers of smoking
"light" cigarettes. In granting the class-action status,
Oleisky indicating that in the case of economic claims, all members
who purchased "light" cigarettes on the basis of manufacturer's
claims suffered similarly. This is a different standard that is
used in personal injury cases.
The judge's reversal was based on a similar case in Massachusetts
in August. In the Aspinall case, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court (SJC) ruled, in a 4-3 decision, that under Massachusetts'
consumer protection laws, individual plaintiffs do not need to show
personal harm to allow class-action certification. Other states
have such a requirement, making class-action suits difficult to
bring.
In the Aspinall case, the Massachusetts Court found that individual
harm is hard to measure since smokers have ingested differing unmeasured
levels of tar and nicotine. But, the court ruled, this should not
preclude common legal action. While Aspinall is expected to go to
trial, the plaintiffs are claiming economic loss, not personal injury.
As a result, damages, if awarded, are expected to be manageable.
In relying on the Aspinall precedent, Oreisky's latest decision
was based on his interpretation that Minnesota's consumer protection
statutes are written similar to those of Massachusetts.
Common to both suits is the reliance of smokers on Philip Morris'
claims for its product, not personal harm individually suffered.
While we are surprised that both of these dismissed class-action
suits have been reinstated, it would seem that proving economic
harm and commonality in actual trial will be a tougher hurdle.
ANALYST CERTIFICATION
SEC Regulation AC
I, Jay H. Abrams, hereby certify that the views expressed in this
research report accurately reflect my personal views about the subject
securities and issuers. I also certify that no part of my compensation
was, is, or will be, directly or indirectly, related to the specific
recommendations or view expressed in this report.
12/06/2004
About
Dr. Abrams | 
