Mo. Court Affirms Light-Cigarettes Class Action

A Missouri smoker who sued Philip Morris USA Inc. for allegedly making false claims about the health effects of light cigarettes appropriately brought the matter as a class action, a state appeals court has found.

The suit filed in 2000 alleged that Missouri consumers did not receive "the qualities and economic value of low-tar, low-nicotine cigarettes."

The lawsuit said light cigarettes, when used normally, actually deliver higher levels of tar and nicotine than demonstrated in machine testing conditions.

Judge Michael David of the St. Louis Circuit Court certified a class of plaintiffs consisting of state "residents who had purchased [Philip Morris brand] lights in Missouri since 1971 but who do not have a claim for personal injury relating to smoking."

Upon reconsideration, the court limited the class to those who had purchased light cigarettes in the five years preceding the date of the suit's filing, Feb. 14, 2000.

Philip Morris appealed the class certification. The company said lead plaintiff Dayna Craft is not an adequate representative of the class because potential class members may have their own personal-injury claims, creating a conflict of interest, and that individual issues would outweigh common issues at trial.

The Missouri Court of Appeals said if there were a conflict of interest between Craft and the class members with respect to the lawsuit, she could not fairly represent the class. The panel found none, saying the representative plaintiff was not keeping the class members from filing their own lawsuits for personal injuries related to smoking.

On the commonality of issues, the appeals court said the allegations are based on how the cigarettes were labeled, not how individuals smoked them. Since the allegations go to the conditions of the product, "evidence of individual smoking behavior does not predominate over the common questions of liability," the panel said.

The class as defined by the trial court is not ambiguous, the appeals court noted. The court below used "objective criteria that do not depend on the consumer's subjective state of mind or the merits of the case," the opinion states.

In affirming class certification, the appeals court said the opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final position adopted by the panel.