Opinion ID: 2065552
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Foreign Governments' Complaints And The Grounds For Their Dismissal

Text: In their complaints, the Foreign Governments seek to recover medical expenses they claim to have incurred for decades in treating the health problems resulting from their citizens' consumption of the Tobacco Company Defendants' tobacco products. Specifically, the Foreign Governments claim that their citizens were misled about the health risks of smoking and as a result, began to smoke (or to smoke more), and became ill. As a consequence, the Foreign Governments' citizens incurred medical expenses that the Foreign Governments became legally obligated to, and did, pay. The Foreign Governments claim that they also were misled about the health risks of smoking, which caused them to refrain from taking more effective prevention measures that would have reduced smoking, smoking-related diseases, and the resulting medical expenses. The complaints do not identify any individual smokers whose smoking-related expenses the Foreign Governments were required to pay, nor do they identify the persons (whether smokers or government officials) who allegedly were misled. The Republic of Panama complaint alleged that the Tobacco Company Defendants were liable on theories of negligence, strict liability in tort, and unjust enrichment under Panamanian civil law. The complaint of the State of São Paulo, Brazil alleged that those defendants were liable for negligence, breach of public health obligations, strict liability in tort, and unjust enrichment under Brazilian civil law. In addition, both Foreign Governments asserted claims of breach of voluntary undertaking, unjust enrichment, fraud, and civil conspiracy under Delaware law. The Foreign Governments brought these Superior Court actions in their own right, rather than seeking to stand in the shoes of their citizens by way of subrogation. Thus, the Foreign Government complaints do not seek damages for the smoking-related personal injuries suffered by their citizens. Rather, they purport to seek damages for what they describe as separate injuries to [the Foreign Governments'] property and national patrimony that is wholly distinct from the harm[ ] suffered by individuals. [3] As previously noted, certain Tobacco Company Defendants moved to dismiss the complaints for failure to state a legally cognizable claim for relief. The Superior Court granted the motion, holding that the Foreign Governments' claims failed because the complaints did not establish proximate cause as a matter of law: Acting as a healthcare provider, the Foreign Governments cannot establish proximate causation of their injury, because their injury is only related to Moving Defendants via the actions or inactions of their citizens. Standing between Moving Defendants' alleged tortuous [sic] conduct and the Foreign Governments' injury are their citizen smokers. The smokers break the chain of causation and disrupt the natural and continuous sequence between the act and the injury. The trial court further held that the Foreign Governments lacked standing to seek a recovery on behalf of their citizens as parens patriae. [4] Under the parens patriae doctrine, U.S. States have standing in the federal courts to assert claims on behalf of their citizens. [5] Relying upon federal court precedent, the Superior Court held that  parens patriae standing should not be recognized in a foreign nation (by contrast with a state in this country) unless there is a clear indication by the [United States] Supreme Court or one of the two coordinate branches of government to grant such standing. [6] The Foreign Governments, the trial court noted, did not cite any `indication' from any one of the three co-equal branches of government that parens patriae should be recognized in tobacco cases brought by foreign nations. . . .  [7] The Foreign Governments filed a timely appeal from the Superior Court order of dismissal.