Suffolk County Superior Court Denies Summary Judgment in Tobacco Wrongful Death Case
Boston, MA — March 2026 — Suffolk County Superior Court denied summary judgment in Boyle v. Philip Morris USA Inc., et al., allowing a wrongful death action arising from decades of cigarette marketing and distribution to proceed to trial.
The case was brought by Lawrence Boyle, as personal representative of the estate of Linda Boyle, who alleges that Philip Morris USA Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, and Stop & Shop Supermarket Company, LLC marketed and sold cigarettes in a manner that concealed known health risks and contributed to Ms. Boyle’s illness and death.
In a March 17, 2026 decision, the Court rejected defendants’ arguments that the record failed to present triable issues of fact. The Court held that a reasonable jury could find that defendants engaged in negligent marketing and distribution practices, including targeting minors and promoting cigarettes through advertising and product sampling during the period when Ms. Boyle began smoking.
The Court further concluded that the record contains sufficient evidence to support claims for fraud and civil conspiracy. The decision points to evidence that defendants marketed “Light” and “Ultra-Light” cigarettes in a manner that could mislead consumers into believing those products were safer, and that a reasonable jury could find that such representations influenced smoking behavior.
Zimmer, Citron & Clarke represents the plaintiff in the litigation together with the Public Health Advocacy Institute. Partner David Zimmer argued the summary judgment motions.
“This family deserves the chance to hold the tobacco companies accountable in front of ajury,” said Zimmer. “For years, these companies knew the dangers of their products and continued to prioritize profits over people’s lives. We are proud to stand with the Boyle family as they seek justice for Linda’s death.”
The Court also denied Philip Morris’s separate motion for summary judgment, rejecting its argument that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by collateral estoppel. The Court found that prior litigation did not preclude the estate from pursuing its claims, particularly given differences in timing and the factual record.
The ruling allows the case to proceed toward trial, where a jury will examine claims including fraud, civil conspiracy, and violations of Massachusetts consumer protection law.
The case is Lawrence Boyle, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Linda Boyle v. Philip Morris USA Inc., et al., Suffolk County Superior Court, No. 2284CV01690-C.
