Opinion
SC21-1596
11-23-2022
ROBERT MILLER, ETC. Petitioner(s) v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY Respondent(s)
Lower Tribunal No(s).: 1D20-467; 162008CA000401LXXXMA
Upon review of the response to this Court's order to show cause dated May 18, 2022, and the reply, the Court has determined that it should decline to accept jurisdiction in this case. See Prentice v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 338 So.3d 831 (Fla. 2022). The petition for discretionary review is, therefore, denied.
No motion for rehearing will be entertained by the Court. See Fla. R App P 9330(d)(2).
MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, POLSTON, COURIEL, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
LABARGA, J., concurs in result only with an opinion.
FRANCIS, J., did not participate.
LABARGA, J., concurring in result only.
Because I strongly believe that proof of fraudulent concealment in an Engle-progeny case does not require proof of reliance on a specific statement by an Engle defendant, I dissented to this Court's holding in Prentice v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 338 So.3d 831 (Fla. 2022).
In this case, I recognize, as does the petitioner, that this Court's holding in Prentice is controlling. However, I reaffirm my dissent in Prentice, and I concur in result only to the extent that Prentice requires this result.
HON. KATIE L. DEARING, JUDGE