Page:Philip Morris Companies v. Miner.pdf/12

 and reliance require individual inquiries, the circuit court can decertify the class in a bifurcated proceeding.

C. Damages
Bifurcation also solves Philip Morris's concern that damages are so individualized that the issue destroys predominance. According to Philip Morris, a plaintiff can only recover if he or she (1) failed to receive less tar or nicotine and (2) would have smoked less or quit smoking but for Philip Morris's fraud. For support, Philip Morris cites to a Second Circuit case that succinctly summarizes the point:

"[S]mokers who would have purchased full-flavored cigarettes instead of Lights had they known that Lights were not healthier would have suffered no injury because Lights have always been priced the same as full-flavored cigarettes. By contrast, those who would have quit smoking altogether could recover their expenses in purchasing Lights. And those who would have continued to smoke, but in greater moderation, could recover something in between. Thus, on the issue of out-of-pocket loss, individual questions predominate; plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of showing that injury is amenable to common proof."

''McLaughlin v. Am. Tobacco Co.'', 522 F.3d 215, 228 (2d Cir. 2008). The plaintiffs counter that they are entitled to damages for buying a product that was not as represented—that is, a safer, healthier, and less addictive cigarette.