Case Name: Tina RUSSO, as Executor de son tort of the Estate of Phyllis Frazier, deceased, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., a Virginia corporation, and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, a North Carolina corporation, Appellees/Cross-Appellants
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2016-10-19
Citations: 208 So. 3d 172
Docket Number: No. 3D15-1348
Parties: Tina RUSSO, as Executor de son tort of the Estate of Phyllis Frazier, deceased, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., a Virginia corporation, and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, a North Carolina corporation, Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
Judges: Before WELLS and LOGUE, JJ, and LEVY, Senior Judge.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 208
Pages: 172–173

Head Matter:
Tina RUSSO, as Executor de son tort of the Estate of Phyllis Frazier, deceased, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., a Virginia corporation, and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, a North Carolina corporation, Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
No. 3D15-1348.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Oct. 19, 2016.
Gerson & Schwartz, Edward S. Schwartz and Philip M. Gerson, for appellant/cross-appellee.
Arnold & Porter, and Geoffrey J. Michael, Washington, D.C.; Shook Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P., and William P. Geraghty and Rachel A. Canfield, for appellee/cross-appellant Philip Morris USA, Inc.; Jones Day, and Gregory G. Katsas, Washington, D.C.; Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, and Geoffrey K. Beach and Howell A. Burkhalter, Winston-Salem, N.C.; Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, and Jeffrey A. Cohen, for appellee/cross-appellant, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.
Before WELLS and LOGUE, JJ, and LEVY, Senior Judge.

Opinion:
WELLS, J.
The estate of a tobacco plaintiff appeals a final judgment in the defendant tobacco companies' favor, wherein the estate maintained an addiction to cigarettes containing nicotine was a legal cause of plaintiffs disease and death. Finding no merit to the claims of error raised, we affirm the final judgment and therefore find no need to and do not, address the tobacco company's cross-appeal.