## Facts

- Three former smokers with lung cancer (and spouses) sued multiple cigarette manufacturers and industry organizations under Wisconsin law.
- Plaintiffs alleged that defendants’ conduct, including public messaging and industry activities, concealed or minimized cigarettes’ health risks and addictiveness.
- Plaintiffs asserted theories including strict-liability-type claims (including negligence per se), intentional exposure to a hazardous substance, fraud, and civil conspiracy, as well as ordinary negligence.
- In district court, the smokers’ claims were severed into separate actions due to individualized smoking histories and causation questions.
- The district court later granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims except one; after dismissal of the remaining claim by stipulation, plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment was proper on strict-liability-type theories, including claims framed as negligence per se and intentional exposure to a hazardous substance.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper on fraud and civil conspiracy theories premised on alleged industry-wide deception.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper on ordinary negligence claims against cigarette manufacturers under Wisconsin law, given widespread public knowledge of smoking risks and plaintiffs’ voluntary smoking.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants on most claims, including strict-liability-type and fraud/conspiracy theories.
- The court reversed summary judgment on plaintiffs’ ordinary negligence claims.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on ordinary negligence.

## Legal Principles

- Under Wisconsin products-liability law, a plaintiff must show a product defect; generalized proof that cigarettes are dangerous, coupled with extensive public knowledge of smoking risks, did not establish defect for strict-liability purposes on this record.
- Fraud and conspiracy claims require proof tied to each plaintiff, including causation and (where applicable) individual reliance; broad allegations of industry-wide deception did not substitute for those elements at summary judgment.
- Wisconsin negligence law does not categorically bar negligence claims against cigarette manufacturers merely because smoking is risky and many consumers are aware of that risk.
- Questions concerning duty, breach, foreseeability, warnings over time, and comparative fault may present triable issues in cigarette cases even where strict-liability and fraud-based theories fail.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit largely sustained dismissal of the smokers’ strict-liability and fraud/conspiracy claims but held that Wisconsin law permitted their ordinary negligence claims to proceed, requiring factfinding on defendants’ alleged unreasonable conduct and the parties’ comparative fault.


Insolia v. Philip Morris Inc., 216 F.3d 596 (7th Cir. 2000)