 The unanimous ruling Thursday by the three-judge panel of the Mount
Vernon-based 5th District Appellate Court cleared the way for the
plaintiffs to argue that a favorable 2008 U.S. Supreme Court
decision in an unrelated case may be applied to reinstate the
questioned Madison County one involving Philip Morris' marketing of
"light" cigarettes.In 2003, now-retired Madison County Circuit
Judge Nicholas Byron found that Philip Morris misled customers about
"light" and "low tar" cigarettes and broke state law by marketing
them as safer. The state's Supreme Court overturned that verdict in
2005, saying the Federal Trade Commission allowed companies to
characterize or label their cigarettes as "light" and "low tar," so
Philip Morris could not be held liable under state law even if such
terms could be found false or misleading.
The U.S. Supreme Court in late 2006 let that ruling stand, and
Byron dismissed the case the next month. But in December 2008, the
U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled in a lawsuit on behalf
of three Maine residents that smokers may use state consumer
protection laws to sue cigarette makers for the way they promote
"light" and "low tar" brands.
Counting that decision as new evidence, the attorney behind the
Illinois lawsuit, Stephen Tillery, again approached the Mount Vernon
appellate court in hopes of reopening his firm's class-action
lawsuit involving 1.1 million people who bought "light" cigarettes
in Illinois.
That suit has claimed that Philip Morris knew when it introduced
such cigarettes in 1971 that they were no healthier than regular
cigarettes. But the company hid that information and the fact that
light cigarettes actually had a more toxic form of tar, the lawsuit
claimed.
Philip Morris, which can appeal Thursday's order to the state's
high court, said in a statement Saturday that it would continue to
fight. Murray Garnick of Altria Client Services, which represents
Altria Group Inc. subsidiary Philip Morris USA, said Thursday's
ruling was based solely on a procedural question about whether the
plaintiffs met a statute of limitations -- the appeals court found
they did -- and not the merits of the plaintiffs' bid to reopen the
case.
[to top of second column] |
Since Illinois' Supreme Court reversed the damages award, "the
plaintiffs have made multiple unsuccessful attempts to reopen the
case," Garnick said. "We believe that the plaintiffs' latest attempt
is equally without merit."
Tillery said in a statement Friday to the St. Louis
Post-Dispatch, which first reported Thursday's appellate ruling,
that his St. Louis firm is "eager to return to the courtroom to seek
the justice our clients deserve."
The protracted Illinois legal fight has proven to be a headache
for even some jurists on the state's highest court. After Byron
asked the Mount Vernon appellate court in May 2007 whether he had
authority to reopen the lawsuit he decided against Philip Morris,
the Illinois Supreme Court in 2007 ordered without explanation that
Byron stop such inquiries.
"The court's action today is entirely predictable because it
quickly and quietly closes the book on a case that a majority of
this court, I am sure, would rather forget," Justice Charles Freeman
wrote then in dissent in the 4-2 ruling.
Former Illinois Gov. James Thompson, a Chicago attorney who was
representing Philip Morris, argued then that the appellate court has
no authority to decide whether the case can be reopened.
___
Online:
Plaintiffs' law firm:
http://www.koreintillery.com/
Altria Group Inc.:
http://www.altria.com/
[Associated Press]
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or
redistributed.
 |
