What do state tobacco deals mean for national settlement?
August 25, 1997
Web posted at: 10:18 p.m. EDT (0218 GMT)
(CNN) -- Florida's announcement Monday that it had settled
its claims against the tobacco industry -- even though a
nationwide settlement had just been reached -- raises several
questions. Among them: Why did the state settle? And how will
its settlement affect the national deal, which has yet to be
approved by Congress?
A look at the steps leading to Monday's announcement may
provide the answer.
Mississippi was the first state to file charges against the
industry, suing to recover the cost of treating Medicaid
recipients with smoking-related illnesses. About 40 states
followed -- and filed -- suit, including Florida in 1995.
This spring, besieged by hundreds of billions of dollars in
potential liability, the tobacco companies came to the table.
A fragile coalition of health interests, class-action lawyers
and state attorneys general coalesced long enough to cut a
tentative deal in June.
Under the so-called national settlement plan, the tobacco
industry would pay more than $368 billion over 25 years and
accept restrictions on advertising and sales.
"The Marlboro man will be riding into the sunset on Joe
Camel," Bob Butterworth, Florida's attorney general, said at
the time.
In exchange, the industry would win protection from
class-action suits.
"The real advantages of a national agreement are
they put in place everything we can think of to
reduce teen smoking."
John Coale, tobacco negotiator
|
None of the parties wanted to take the chance that a state
trial could hurt a national plan's odds of passage. So when
Mississippi's case came to trial last month, tobacco settled,
agreeing to pay that state $3.6 billion over 25 years.
Florida's settlement is for $11.3 billion. On a per-smoker
basis, Florida got less money than Mississippi.
"But more than the money, and the reason we really decided to
settle," said Florida Gov. Lawton Chiles, "was they agreed to
take down the billboards and ... quit targeting kids."
Mississippi's deal says if another state does better, they
would get the same, and so Florida's restrictions on ads and
sales will be shared by Mississippi.
A national accord, if approved by Congress, could change what
both states get. Butterworth says the provisions would
supersede Florida's settlement "to some extent," but the
state would still retain the money already paid, as well as
certain restrictions, such as the one on billboards.
'It means they've got to hurry up'
If no national agreement is reached, both states will keep
what they have won. Why, then, shouldn't other states cut
their own deals with big tobacco instead of signing on to a
national accord?
"The real advantages of a national agreement are they put in
place everything we can think of to reduce teen smoking,"
said John Coale, a Washington attorney who helped negotiate
the national agreement.
On Monday, Texas said it would proceed with its suit despite
the Florida settlement. And in Philadelphia, a U.S. district
judge set a trial date for another class-action case
representing more than 2 million smokers. Settlement
discussions for both are already under way.
"This is a big deal," Coale said. "It means they've got to
hurry up" with ratification of the national settlement.
The tobacco industry agreed.
"The comprehensive settlement represents the best opportunity
to achieve immediate and meaningful resolution of outstanding
issues regarding tobacco, including a reduction in the use of
tobacco products by minors and the preservation of adults'
rights to use tobacco," five major tobacco companies said in
the statement.
The Clinton administration said Florida's deal should not
affect progress on that settlement.
"We don't think it should have any impact on our review,"
said White House spokesman Barry Toiv.
Correspondent Tom Watkins, The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.