WPCA L̘f88)h;:7ڡ6(ug9Fp ޣ]ߔ\MI;TT[sl~*/h_Hs;UXJ]0m=Q\rySEI)!m=kY,.ODA8qJ91ͬn *5MŚ&OIї w q ;lk띟&&LQDbLL-0'uk &S)Ww 76Ӱ,ysphn5n q+:Mh(h^JK:f-H ՞jjd@ZnU]t"K)$d@B;tv3|9m)BmBڳbYh.'`iL8Wٵ:GZ"u_3lnϛJ7!wP`$t}F<7<@ˠESxng1DX4!'ݭO^ẘhKql TW#UN % 0:U N Y_ ^ w 4   m ` d 0 0  0D 0J"88EZ\ 0r 0] 0E 0* 0  0 0 0 0! 0d" 0=# 0$ 0$ 0% 0& 0M' 0.( 0 ) 0) 0* 0+ 0f,f, 05- 0. 00. 0<. 06/ 0>/ 0v20 0`0 0`1 0`h1 0`1 0`(2 082 02 023 03 0:4 0Y4 0_S5 0 5 0j6 0&8 B*9 D/9 D+: 0.: D/; 0; 06< 0< 0:= 0^'> 0<>U6>U>> 05?U*? 0?? B@HP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,("  Z6Times New Roman Regular O R%$USUS.,    1  X8XXX  _Ԁ& %XX8TheFundsstatedduringoralargumentonthemotiontodismissthattheyintendedto  voluntarilynonsuittheiradditionalclaimsforunjustenrichment,breachofavoluntarilyundertaken  duty,breachofexpressedandimpliedwarranties,negligence,andproductsliability.Anorder t recognizingnonsuitsoneachoftheseclaimswasenteredonMarch16,1999 .#:)L L-(:i+003|x U V R%$USUS.,    3  X8XXX  _& %XX8ԀThecourtusedthesamereasoningtodismissthefundscommonlawfraudandspecialduty  claimsassertedunderstatelaw. Seeid. at242243.  R%$USUS.,    4  X8XXX  _Ԁ& %XX8In InternationalBrotherhoodofTeamsters,Local734HealthandWelfareTrustFundv.  PhilipMorris,Inc. ,196F.3d818(7th.Cir.1999),thecourtlabeledthedamagesallegedbyplaintiff  healthcarefundsagainstdefendanttobaccocompaniesas hopelesslyspeculative. Id. at826. v Addressingplaintiffscontentionthatdefendantsdeceptionastothedangersofsmokingprevented P plaintiffsfromconductingeducationprogramsfortheirparticipants,thecourtinquired [j]ustwhat (x wouldtheinsurershavedone,hadtheyknownmoreearlier? Id. at826.Thecourtqueried:  P 8  Howeffectivewould[aneducationcampaign]havebeen?Or:whyshouldwethinkthat   insurerswouldsucceedwheretheSurgeonGeneralandwarningsontheproductfailed?   Theinsurersnowhavealltheinformationtheysaytheylackedyearsago,butwhat b   reasonhavewetobelievethatthisknowledgebyinsurershasaffectedcigarette :   consumption?Howwouldanychangehaveaffectedthereceiptsideoftheinsurers b  ledger?Insurershavebeenofferinglowerratestononsmokersforalongtime;whatis :  theneteffectoftheseratesonsmoking,health,andprofits?     Id. #X8X %&#2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5   (#$  0  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5    R%$USUS.,    2  X8XXX  _Ԁ& %XX8Thecourtnoted,parenthetically,thatitsdecisionshavedemonstratedthatforeseeabilityand  directinjury(orremoteness)aredistinctconcepts,bothofwhichmustgenerallybeestablishedbya  plaintiff.Theplaintiffsdamagesmaybeforeseeable,yetstill tooremotetopermitrecovery. Seeid.  t at236(citing Kinsmanv.TransitCo.v.CityofBuffalo ,388F.2d821,82425,&n.8(2dCir.1968), N  and  DundeeCementCo.v.ChemicalLabs,Inc. ,712F.2d1166,1168(7thCir.1983)).  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      XXX(&H2  XXX(&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(&H5  XXX(&H6  XXX20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKP<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSQ\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KP<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXSQ\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KP<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSQ\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7F(X7  ?S%2A`Arial?7G(X7  XXXSQ\  `&Times New RomanS&  d dE)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7I(X7  ?S%2A`Arial?7G(X7  XXXSQ\  `&Times New RomanSE)2dxd0KS.SampleKP<6X9`(Courier NewKSQ\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKP<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSQ\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman(.G2%$ !USUS.,      0  X`XXX%2A`Arial<VV@ :QuickFormat1XXX  cb   XXX  cb    d !USUS.,  _XkXXXXXk8kXXdd8OY    @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @''%ATJACKSON    November1999Session 0 #XkX\#[ XXk  STEAMFITTERSLOCALUNIONNO.614HEALTHANDWELFARE 8 FUND,etal.v.PHILIPMORRIS,INC.,etal.#XkX#   P @R R  InterlocutoryAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforShelbyCounty  X @ No.922602T.D.JamesF.Russell,Judge  H @*AV) ` dE<` A߈   @& & No.W199901061_COA_ԄR9CVFiledSeptember26,_2000_Ԉ   AV) ` dE<` A      Unionhealthandwelfarefundsbroughtanactionagainsttobaccocompaniesandtheirtrade  associationstorecoverthefundscostsoftreatingtheirparticipantssmokingrelatedillnesses.The  tobaccocompaniesmovedtodismissthecomplaint,arguingthatthefundseconomicinjurieswere  derivativeoftheparticipantsphysicalinjuriesand,consequently,tooremoteforrecovery.Thetrial v courtgrantedthemotiontodismissonthefundsantitrustclaimbutdeniedthemotiononthefunds f claimsforfraudanddeceit,misrepresentation,conspiracyandviolationoftheTennesseeConsumer V ProtectionAct.Permissionforinterlocutoryappealwasgrantedtothetobaccocompaniesbyboth F thetrialcourtandtheappellatecourt.Weaffirmthetrialcourtsdismissaloftheantitrustclaimand 6 reversethetrialcourtsdenialofthemotiontodismissontheremainingclaims,findingthe &v plaintiffsallegedinjuriesaretooremote,asamatteroflaw,topermitrecovery.Thecauseis f remandedforentryofanorderdismissingtheplaintiffscomplaint. V  @aaTenn.R.App.P.9InterlocutoryAppeal;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtisAffirmedin@@y y  6 Part,ReversedinPartandRemanded.  & HollyKirbyLillard,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,P.J., !  W.S.,andDavidR.Farmer,J.,joined. "! LeoBearman,Jr.,JillM.Steinberg,Memphis,Tennessee,KennethJ.Parsigian,Boston, $# Massachusetts,JackE.McClard,Richmond,Virginia,forPhilipMorris,Inc. v% $ JeffJones,Columbus,Ohio,AlbertC.Harvey,Memphis,Tennessee,forR.J.ReynoldsTobacco V'"& Company. F(#' KennethN.Bass,Washington,D.C.,LeeJ.Chase,Memphis,Tennessee,forBrown&Williamson &*v%) TobaccoCorporation. +f&* MaryElizabethMcGarry,NewYork,NewYork,forB.A.T.Industries,PLC. ,F(,  -6)-G JeffreyS.Nelson,KansasCity,Missouri,RogerDickson,Chattanooga,Tennessee,forLorrillard  TobaccoCompany.  HarryZirlin,NewYork,NewYork,WilliamS.Lockette,Jr.,Knoxville,Tennessee,forTheCouncil  forTobaccoResearchUSA,Inc. p SaulC.Belz,Memphis,Tennessee,forTheTobaccoInstitute,Inc. P  BruceM.Ginsberg,NewYork,NewYork,GaryK.Smith,Memphis,Tennessee,forHill& 0  Knowlton,Inc.  p  RobertG._McDowell_,Nashville,Tennessee,forUnitedStatesTobaccoCompany P  JohnMcReynolds,Jr.,Knoxville,Tennessee,forLiggettGroup,Inc. 0  EdwardBearman,Memphis,Tennessee,forSmokelessTobaccoCouncil,Inc.  SylviaDavidow,DLisaR.Simmons,Houston,Texas,for_Steamfitters_ԀLocalUnionNo.614Health  andWelfareFund.  DeborahGodwin,Memphis,Tennessee,for _Steamfitters_ԀLocalUnionNo.614HealthandWelfare p Fund.#X8XXXk=#XkXXX8 ` LouisL.Robein,Metairie,Louisiana,for _Steamfitters_ԀLocalUnionNo.614HealthandWelfare @ Fund.#X8XXXk #XkXXX8 0 RobertJ.Connerton,Washington,D.C.,for _Steamfitters_ԀLocalUnionNo.614HealthandWelfare  p Fund.#X8XXXk#XkXXX8 ` @55' OPINION  @    Plaintiff/Appellees( Funds)aremultiemployerhealthandwelfaretrustfundsregulated   byERISA,29U.S.C.1001et.seq.andfundedbyemployercontributionsundercollective ! bargainingagreements.TheFundspaymedicalexpensesforunionemployeesandretirees,aswell "  astheirdependents.TheFundsaresubrogatedtoalloftherightsandcausesofactionofthe #! participantsandbeneficiariesforwhommedicalbenefitsareprovidedbecauseofinjuriesand $" illnessescausedbyanythirdparty_tortfeasor_. % #   OnJanuary7,1998,theFundsfiledacomplaintagainsttheDefendant/Appellantscigarette `'"% manufacturersandtheirtradeassociations( TobaccoCompanies),seekingrecoveryofcosts P(#& incurredbytheFundsinprovidingmedicaltreatmentandotherbenefitstoparticipantssuffering @)$' fromtobaccorelatedillnesses.Inthecomplaint,theFundsassertedthattheTobaccoCompanies 0*%( concealedormisrepresentedinformationconcerningtheharmfulandaddictivenatureoftobacco,  +p&) thattheydeceptivelymanipulatednicotinelevelsincigarettestomaintaintheiraddictiveness,and ,`'* thattheysuppressedthedevelopmentandmarketingofsafertobaccoproducts.TheFunds  contendedthattheseactionspreventedtheFundsfromimplementingprogramstoeducate  participantsandbeneficiariesaboutnicotineaddiction,toencouragetheuseofsafercigarettes,or  toencouragebeneficiariestoquitsmoking.TheFundsallegedthat,asaresult,theyincurred  increasedhealthcarecostsonbehalfofparticipantsforthetreatmentoftobaccorelatedillnesses, p therebycausingfinancialinjurytotheFundsassets.TheFundsasserted,interalia,claimsfor `  antitrustviolationsundertheTennesseeUniformTradePracticesAct,commonlawclaimsforfraud P  anddeceit,negligentmisrepresentation,andconspiracy,aswellasviolationsoftheTennessee @  ConsumerProtectionAct( TCPA). 0    OnApril20,1998,theTobaccoCompaniesfiledamotiontodismisstheFundscomplaint `  underRule12.02(6)oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedureforfailuretostateaclaimupon P  whichreliefcanbegranted.Inthemotion,theTobaccoCompaniesarguedthattheFundsclaims @  shouldbedismissedbecausetheirallegedeconomicinjuriesweretooremoteasamatteroflawfor 0  recovery.    XX  OnJanuary29,1999,thetrialcourtentereditsopinionandordergrantingtheTobacco  CompaniesmotiontodismisstheFundsantitrustclaimsbutdenyingthemotiontodismissits  claimsforfraudanddeceit,negligentmisrepresentation,conspiracy,andviolationofthe_TCPA_. #  1      ׀  Initsopinionandorder,thetrialcourtaddressedtheTobaccoCompaniesargumentthat,asamatter  oflaw,theFundseconomicinjuriesweretooremoteforrecovery#X8XXXk#: p 8  Accordingtoallauthoritiesremotenessisacomponentofanyanalysiswithregard p toproximatecause.InTennesseethecasesarelegioninholdingthatproximate \ causeisalwaystobedetermineduponthefactsofeachcase.Thusproximatecause H isordinarilyaquestionforthejurytodecideunlesstheuncontrovertedfactsand 4 inferencestobedrawnfromthemmakeitsoclearthatallreasonablepersonsmust  p agreeontheproperoutcome.Suchissuesmaybepreemptedbythetrialjudgeonly  \ whereevidenceandreasonableinferencestherefromaresofreeofconflictthatall H reasonablemindswouldagreewiththedecisionofthetrialjudge.Atthisstagein 4 theproceedingsthisCourtisoftheconsideredopinionthat,giventhepleadingsand   factualassertionstherein,itismoreappropriateforajurytodeterminetheissueof !  remotenesswithproperinstructionsgivingdueconsiderationtotheissueof "  remoteness.#!    l% # Op.andOrderatp.67(footnoteomitted).Consequently,thetrialcourtdeniedtheTobacco  CompaniesmotiontodismissastotheFundsclaimsforfraudanddeceit,negligent  misrepresentation,andconspiracy.ThetrialcourtdeniedthemotiontodismissontheFundsclaim  forviolationsoftheTCPAbased,inpart,onthetrialcourtsdeterminationthataplaintiffisnot t requiredtoestablishproximatecausationaspartofacauseofactionunderthe_TCPA_. `   OnMay6,1999,thetrialcourtissuedanordergrantingtheTobaccoCompaniespermission 8  toseekinterlocutoryappealofthetrialcourtsopinionandorder.Intheordergrantinginterlocutory $ t appeal,thetrialcourtacknowledgedthat,thoughithadfoundtheapplicationoftheremoteness  ` doctrineajuryquestion, manycourtsthathaveconsideredsimilarcaseshavedismissed  L  substantiallyidenticalthirdpartypayorsuitsintheirentiretyasamatteroflawonremoteness  8  grounds.ThetrialcourtnotedthattheUnitedStatesCourtsofAppealfortheSecondandThird $  CircuitshadissueddecisionsdismissingclaimssimilartothosebroughtbytheFundsinthiscase   onremotenessgrounds. See  LaborersLocal17Health&BenefitFundv.PhilipMorris,Inc. ,191   F.3d229(2dCir.1999),cert.denied,120S.Ct.799,145L.Ed.2d673(2000); SteamfittersLocal   UnionNo.420WelfareFund,etal.v.PhilipMorris,Inc.,etal. ,185F.3d957(3dCir.1999),cert.   denied,120S.Ct.789,145L.Ed.2d666(2000).Thetrialcourtalsociteddecisionsbynumerous p stateandfederaltrialandappellatecourtswhichhaddismissedsomeoftheclaimsbroughtbythird \ partypayorsbuthadallowedcertainclaimstoproceed,aswellasotherswhichhadrefusedto H dismissanythirdpartypayorclaimsastooremote.Acknowledgingthatits treatmentofthe 4 remotenessdoctrine...[was]uniquelydifferentfromthatofothertrialcourtsfromaroundthe  p country[,]thetrialcourtconcludedthatinterlocutoryappealofitsdenialofthemotiontodismiss  \ waswarrantedinorderto determinewhetherTennesseescommonlawremotenesslimitsare H uniformwiththoseofotherjurisdictions.OnJune15,1999,thisCourtgrantedtheTobacco 4 Companiesapplicationforinterlocutoryappeal.     TheissueonappealiswhetherthetrialcourterredinfailingtogranttheTobacco  CompaniesmotiontodismissontheFundsremainingclaimsforfraudanddeceit,  misrepresentation,conspiracy,andviolationofthe_TCPA_.Thereisnodisputeastothetrialcourts  dismissaloftheFundsantitrustclaim,consequently,thatportionofthetrialcourtsrulingis l affirmed. X    Onappeal,theTobaccoCompaniesarguethatthetrialcourterredinfailingtograntthe 0"  motiontodismissastoalloftheFundsclaims.TheTobaccoCompaniesclaimthattheFunds #l! economiclossesareentirelyderivativeofthephysicalinjuriessufferedbyparticipantsandare,as $X" amatteroflaw,tooremoteforrecovery.TheTobaccoCompaniesnotedecisionsfromnumerous $D # stateandfederaljurisdictionsinsubstantiallysimilarsuits,includingdecisionsbymultiplefederal %0!$ appellatecourtsdecidedafterthetrialcourtissueditsopinionandorder,whichhavefoundclaims &"% similartothoseassertedbytheFundsinthiscasetooremoteasamatteroflaw. '#&   Theissuepresentedinthiscaseisaquestionoflaw.Consequently,thescopeofreviewis )$( denovowithnopresumptionofcorrectnessinthetrialcourtsdecision. See  Ridingsv.RalphM. |*%) ParsonsCo., 914S.W.2d79,80(Tenn.1996). h+&*   UnderTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedureRule12.02(6),amotiontodismissacomplaint  forfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegrantedteststhelegalsufficiencyofacomplaint;  itadmitsthetruthofallrelevantandmaterialallegations butassertsthatsuchfactsdonotconstitute  acauseofactionasamatteroflaw. Riggsv.Burson ,941S.W.2d44,47(Tenn.1997)(quoting t  _Pursell_Ԁv.FirstAm._Natl_ԀBank ,937_S.W.2d_Ԁ838(Tenn._1996))_Ԁ(emphasisomitted).Whenruling ` onsuchamotion,theCourtmustinterprettheallegationsintheplaintiffsfavorandaccept L  allegationsoffactastrue. See  id. Yet,inferencestobedrawnfromthefactsorlegalconclusions 8  setforthinacomplaintarenotrequiredtobeacceptedastrue. See  id. at4748.  Themotionshould $ t bedeniedunlessitappearsthattheplaintiffcanprovenosetoffactsinsupportofhisclaimthat  ` wouldentitlehimtorelief. See Danielv.HardinCountyGeneralHosp. ,971S.W.2d21,2324,  L  (Tenn.Ct.App.1997).  8    In Snyderv.LTGLufttechnischeGmbH ,955S.W.2d252(Tenn.1997),theTennessee   SupremeCourtnotedthatthedoctrineofproximatecausereflectsapolicydecisionmadebythe   legislatureorthecourtstodenyliabilityforotherwiseactionableconductbasedonlogic,common   sense,policy,precedentand ourmoreorlessinadequatelyexpressedideasofwhatjusticedemands   orofwhatisadministrativelypossibleandconvenient. Id .at256,n.6(quoting Bainv.Wells ,936 p S.W.2d618,625(Tenn.1997)); seealso  Kilpatrickv.Bryant ,868S.W.2d594,598(Tenn.1993) \ (statingthatthedoctrineofproximatecauseencompassesthewholepanoplyofrulesthatmaydeny H liabilityforotherwiseactionablecausesofharm).Tennesseecourtshaverecognizedthat,tobe 4 actionable,conductmustbemorethanaremotecauseofinjury.In Doev.LinderConst.Co.,Inc. ,  p 845S.W.2d173(Tenn.1992),theTennesseeSupremeCourtnoted:  \ 8  Asapracticalmatter,legalresponsibilitymustbelimitedtothosecauseswhichare 4 socloselyconnectedwiththeresultandofsuchsignificancethatthelawisjustified   inimposingliability.Someboundarymustbeset....     Id. at181(citingProsserandKeetonontheLawofTorts,41,p.264(5thed.1984)).The  existenceofproximatecausationisajuryquestionunlesstheuncontrovertedfactsandinferences  tobedrawnfromthemmakeitsoclearthatallreasonablepersonswouldagreeontheoutcome. See  l  McClungv.DeltaSquareLtd.Partnership ,937S.W.2d891,905(Tenn.1996). X    Anumberofcourtshaveconsideredtheargumentsassertedbythepartiesinthiscase.The 0"  clearmajorityofcourtshavedeterminedthattheplaintiffsclaimsmustbedismissedbecausethe #l! injuryistooremotetopermitrecovery.Aleadingcaseis LaborersLocal17Health&Benefit $X" Fundv.PhillipMorris,Inc. ,191F.3d229(2dCir.1999),cert.denied,120S.Ct.799,145L.Ed $D # 2d673(2000).In LaborersLocal17 ,unionhealthandwelfaretrustfundsbroughtsuitagainst %0!$ tobaccocompaniestorecovermoneyexpendedtoprovidemedicaltreatmenttothefunds &"% participantssufferingfromtobaccorelatedillnesses. Id. at233.Thefundsalleged damages '#& inflictedon[their]infrastructureindependentoftheharmsufferedbyplanparticipants[,]including (#' lossessufferedduetothefundsinabilitytocontrolcosts,promotetheuseofsafercigarettes,and )$( establisheducationprograms.Thedistrictcourtgranted,inpart,thetobaccocompaniesmotionto |*%) dismissforfailuretostateaclaim,butdeniedthemotionastothefundsclaimsforfederalRICO h+&* violations,statecommonlawfraud,misrepresentation,andconcealment,andforstatecommonlaw  assumptionandbreachofaspecialduty. Seeid. Initspartialdenialofthemotiontodismiss,the  districtcourtheldthat arationaltrieroffactcouldfindthatdefendantsallegedwrongdoing  proximatelycausedplaintiffsallegedinjuries,reasoningthattheinjurieswerearguably(a) t foreseeableand(b)nottooremoteasamatteroflaw.... Id. at233234.Oninterlocutoryappeal ` ofthedistrictcourtsdecision,theappellatecourtconsideredtheissueof: L  8  Whether,underthecircumstancesallegedinplaintiffscomplaint,economicinjuries $ t incurredbyaunionhealthcaretrustfundarepurelyderivativeofthephysicalinjuries  ` whichitsparticipantssuffered,andarethereforetooremotetopermitrecoveryasa  L  matteroflaw. 8     Id. at234.     Attheoutset,theSecondCircuitfoundthattheissueonappealraisedaquestionof   proximatecause,namely, whetherthechainofcausationlinking[thetobaccocompanies]alleged   wrongdoingto[thefunds]allegedinjuriesistooremotetopermitrecoveryasamatteroflaw. Id.  p at234.ConsideringthatquestioninthecontextofthefundsRICOclaims,thecourtstatedthatthe \ doctrineofproximatecausationhastraditionallyrequiredthattherebe somedirectrelationbetween H theinjuryassertedandtheinjuriousconductalleged. #  2      ׀ Id. at235 (citing Holmesv.Securities 4 InvestorProtectionCorp. ,503U.S.258,268,112S.Ct.1311,1318(1992).Therefore,wherea  p plaintiffsinjuriesarewhollyderivativeofharmtoathirdparty,theinjuriesaregenerallydeemed  \ indirectandconsequently,tooremote,asamatteroflaw,tosupportrecovery. SeeLaborersLocal H 17   at236(citationsomitted).Notingtheimpossibilityofcreatingablackletterruletodictatethe 4 resultineverycase,thecourtcitedthreepolicyfactorssuggestedbytheSupremeCourtin Holmes    toguidetheapplicationofthegeneralprinciplethatplaintiffswithindirectinjurieslackstanding   tosue. SeeLaborersLocal17 at236237(citing Holmes ,503U.S.at269270,112S.Ct.at1318).   First,themoreremotetheinjury,themoredifficultitistodeterminetheamountofdamagescaused  bythedefendantsactsasopposedtootherfactors.Second,recognizingclaimsbytheindirectly  injuredcreatesariskofmultiplerecoveries.  Third,thosewhoaredirectlyinjuredareinabetter l positiontoremedyharmwithouttheproblemsfoundinsuitsbasedonmoreremoteinjuries.  See X  LaborersLocal17 ,191F.3dat236237.  D!   Applyingtheseconceptstothefundsclaims,theSecondCircuitfoundthat,whetherthe #l! fundsinjurieswerelabeledas infrastructureharmoras harmtofinancialstability,absentinjury $X" toindividualsmokers,thefundswouldnothaveincurredanyincreasedcostsintheformofpayment $D # ofbenefitsnorwouldtheyhaveexperiencedthedifficultiesofcostpredictionandcontrolthat %0!$ constitutedthecruxoftheirdamages. Id. at239.Thecourtheldthatthefundsinjurieswere   entirelyderivativeoftheharmsufferedbytheirparticipantsasaresultofusingtobaccoproducts.   Id. at239.Sincethedefendantsallegedmisconductdidnotproximatelycausetheinjuriesalleged,  theplaintiffslackedstandingtobringRICOclaimsagainstthedefendants. Seeid. at239.  #  3       t   Thecourtfounditsconclusionconsistentwiththethreepolicyfactorsin Holmes . See  L   LaborersLocal17 at239241.Thecourtcharacterizedthedamagesassertedbythefundsas 8   incrediblyspeculative,notingthedifficultyofprovingdamageswhichstemfromindividual $ t smokersdecisionsofwhether,andhowoften,tosmoke. Id. at23940.B #  4      ׀Thecourtobservedthat,  ` whilethesmokersinthatcasewouldnotpresentariskofdoublerecoveryunderRICO,otherremote  L  payorsliketheemployersorhealthinsurerswithwhomthefundscontractedmightbringsuit,  8  claimingthattheyultimatelyborethecosts. Seeid. at240.Finally,thecourtstatedthat,while $  individualsmokerswouldnothavestandingtobringaclaimunderRICO,individualsmokerscould   assertotherclaimsagainstthetobaccocompaniestoremedytheharmdonebythedefendants   allegedmisconduct. Seeid. at241.Therefore,theSecondCircuitheldthattheplaintiffsinjuries   werepurelyderivativeofthephysicalinjuriessufferedbyplanparticipantsandweretooremoteas   amatteroflawtopermitrecovery.Consequently,thedistrictcourtwasreversedandtheplaintiffs p claimsdismissed. Id. at244. \   SincetheSecondCircuitsdecisionin LaborersLocal17 ,theUnitedStatesCourtsofAppeal 4 fortheThird,Ninth,Seventh,Fifth,andEleventhCircuitshavedismissedintheirentiretycases  p involvingclaimssimilartothosebroughtbytheFundsinthiscaseonremotenessgrounds. See   \  SteamfittersLocalUnionNo.420WelfareFundv.PhilipMorris,Inc. ,171F.3d912(3dCir. H 1999),cert.denied,120S.Ct.844,145L.Ed.2d713(2000); OregonLaborersEmployersHealth 4 OY    &WelfareTrustFundv.PhilipMorris,Inc. ,185F.3d957(9thCir.1999),cert.denied,120S.Ct.  789,145L.Ed.2d666(2000); InternationalBhd.ofTeamsters,Local734HealthandWelfare  TrustFundv.PhilipMorris,Inc. ,196F.3d818(7thCir.1999); TexasCarpentersHealthBenefit  Fundv.PhilipMorris,Inc. ,199F.3d788(5thCir.2000); UnitedFood&CommercialWorkers t Union,EmployersHealthandWelfareFundv.PhilipMorris,Inc. ,No.9913476,2000WL ` 1190787(11thCirAug.22,2000).Inthesecases,eachcourtheldthattheplaintiffsinjurieswere L   entirelyderivativeofthephysicalharmsufferedbytheirplanparticipantsasaresultofusing 8  tobaccoproductsand,consequently,thattheplaintiffshadfailedtoshowthatthedefendantsalleged $ t misconductproximatelycausetheinjuriesalleged.Numerousfederalandstatetrialcourtshavealso  ` dismissedlawsuitsbyunionfundsandotherthirdpartypayorsonremotenessgrounds,  L  characterizingtheplaintiffsclaimsas derivativeorcontingentontheclaimsofindividual  8  smokers. See  RhodeIslandLaborersHealth&WelfareFundv.PhilipMorris,Inc. ,99 $  F.Supp.2d174(D.R.I.2000)(dismissedcomplaintastofederalandstateRICO,federalandstate   antitrust,statefraud,failuretoperformaspecialduty,andstateunfairtradepracticesactclaims);    RepublicofGuatemalav.TheTobaccoInstitute,Inc. ,83F.Supp.2d125(D.D.C.1999)(dismissed   complaintastofederalRICO,federalandDistrictofColumbiaantitrust,fraudandintentional   misrepresentation,negligentmisrepresentation,negligentperformanceofavoluntaryundertaking, p andconspiracyclaims); HawaiiHealth&WelfareTrustFundforOperatingEngineersv.Philip \ Morris,Inc. ,52F.Supp.2d1196(D.Haw.1999)(dismissedcomplaintastofederalandstateRICO, H federalandstateantitrust,variousstatetort,andstatefalseadvertisingclaims); SeafarersWelfare 4 Planv.PhilipMorris,Inc. ,27F.Supp.2d623(D.Md.1998)(dismissedcomplaintastofederal  p RICO,federalandstateantitrust,stateconsumerprotectionact,fraud,negligentmisrepresentation,  \ conspiracy,breachofvoluntarilytakenduty,andunjustenrichmentclaims); TexasCarpenters H HealthBenefitFundv.PhilipMorris,Inc. ,21F.Supp.2d664(E.D.Tex.1998)(dismissed 4 complaintastofederalRICO,federalandstateantitrust,fraudmisrepresentation,breachofspecial   duty,breachofwarranty,negligence,conspiracy,aidingandabetting,unjustenrichment,state   deceptivetradepracticesandconsumerprotectionactsclaims,andvicariousliability),_affd_,199  F.3d788(5thCir.2000); SoutheastFloridaLaborersDistrictHealth&WelfareTrustFundv.  PhilipMorris,Inc. ,No.978715CIVRYSKAMP,1998WL186878(S.D.Fla.Apr.13,1998)  (dismissedcomplaintastofederalRICO,federalandstateantitrust,fraud,breachofaspecialduty, l andunjustenrichmentclaims); EasternStatesHealth&WelfareFundv.PhilipMorris,Inc. ,No. X  603869/97(N.Y.Sup.Ct.Mar.3,2000)(dismissedcomplaintastostatefraud,antitrust,deceptive D! tradepractices,falseadvertising,breachofspecialduty,negligence,negligentproductdesign,strict 0"  liability,entrustment,indemnity,publicnuisance,andsubrogationclaims); OperatingEngrsLocal #l! 324HealthCareFundv.PhilipMorris,Inc. ,No.97741291CZ(Mich.Cir.Ct.Feb.12,1999) $X" (dismissedcomplaintastostateantitrust,consumerprotectionact,fraud,misrepresentation, $D # concealment,breachofaspecialduty,unjustenrichment,conspiracy,andfalseadvertisingact %0!$ claims). &"%   Aminorityofcourts,allfederaldistrictcourts,havedeclinedtodismissactionson (#' remotenessgrounds. See  ServiceEmployees_Intl_ԀUnionHealth&WelfareFundv.PhilipMorris, )$( Inc. ,83F.Supp.2d70(_D.D.C._Ԁ1999)(deniedmotiontodismissastofederalRICO,federalandstate |*%) antitrust,fraud,breachofaspecialduty,indemnity,andunjustenrichmentclaims); BlueCrossBlue h+&* ShieldofNewJersey,Inc.,v.PhilipMorris,Inc. ,36F.Supp.2d560(E.D.N.Y.1999)(denied  motiontodismissastofederalRICOandantitrustclaims);  IronWorkersLocalUnionNo.17Ins.  Fundv.PhilipMorris,Inc. ,23F.Supp.2d771(N.D.Ohio1998)(deniedmotiontodismissasto  federalandstateRICOclaims,federalandstateantitrustclaims,andconspiracyclaims); National t AsbestosWorkersMed.Fundv.PhilipMorris,Inc. ,23F.Supp.2d321(E.D.N.Y.1998)(denied ` motiontodismissastofederalRICO,unjustenrichmentrestitution,indemnity,andbreachofan L  assumeddutyclaims).Forexample,in ServiceEmployeesInternationalUnionHealth&Welfare 8  Fundv.PhillipMorris,Inc. ,thedistrictcourtheldthattheplaintiffsinjuries,depletionofitstrust $ t funds,wereforeseeable,thatindividualFundparticipantscouldnotrecoverunderRICOforsuch  ` damages,andthatitwastooearlyinthelitigationtoconcludethattheplaintiffsdamagesweretoo  L  difficulttoascertain. SeeServiceEmployeesInternationalUnion ,83F.Supp.2dat8488.  8  Therefore,thedistrictcourtdeclinedtograntthetobaccodefendantsmotiontodismiss. Id. at95. $    Inthiscase,theFundsallegethattheTobaccoCompaniesdeceptiveactionspreventedthe   Fundsfromimplementingprogramstoeducateparticipantsaboutthedangersofsmoking,andto   encourageparticipantstousesafercigarettesortostopsmokingaltogether.TheFundsassertthat   theactionsoftheTobaccoCompaniesincreasedthehealthcarecostsincurredonbehalfofplan p participantsfortobaccorelatedillnessesand,consequently,damagedtheFundsfinancialassets. \   TheFundsargueonappealthattheFundsallegedinjuriesaredirect,contendingthatthe 4 conductoftheTobaccoCompaniesandtheinjuryforwhichdamagessoughtaresufficientlyrelated  p andneednotbe immediatelyadjacent.However,asnotedin LaborersLocal17 ,thekeyinquiry  \ regardingdirectinjuryis whetherthedamagesaplaintiffsustainsarederivativeofaninjurytoa H thirdparty. LaborersLocal17 ,191F.3dat23839.Asin LaborersLocal17 ,theFundsdamages 4 intheinstantcareare entirelyderivativeoftheharmsufferedbyplanparticipantsasaresultof   usingtobaccoproducts. Id. at239.Absentthephysicalinjurytoindividualplanparticipantsfrom   usingtobaccoproducts,theFundsfinancialassetswouldnothavebeendamaged.Therefore,since  theFundsinjuriesare purelycontingentonharmtothirdparties,theseinjuriesareindirect. Id.     TheFundsinthiscasearguethatthefactofdamageiscertain,evenif somespeculationmay l berequiredtoassesstheextentoramountoftheFundsdamages....Thiscanonlybe X  characterizedasunderstatement.Indeed,evenifthefactofdamageiscertain,theamountofdamage D! mustbedeemed hopelesslyspeculative. InternationalBhdofTeamsters,Local734Healthand 0"  WelfareTrustFundv.PhillipMorris,Inc. ,196F.3d818,826(7thCir.1999).Asdiscussedat #l! lengthin LaborersLocal17 ,itwouldbe virtuallyimpossiblefortheFundstoprovewith $X" reasonablecertaintytheeffecteducationorsmokingcessationprogramswouldhavehadonthe $D # physicalinjuriessufferedbyplanparticipantssincethedamagesstemfromindividualsmokers %0!$ decisionswhethertocontinuesmokingand,ifso,howfrequentlytosmoke.The Laborers courtalso &"% observedthattheplaintiffsinjuriesderived notsimplyfromdefendantsaffirmativemisconduct '#& butalsofromplaintiffsfraudulentlyinducedinaction. Id. at240.Itnotedthat itisofteneasier (#' toascertainthedamagesthatflowfromactual,affirmativeconduct,thantospeculatewhatdamages )$( arosefromapartysfailuretoact. Id. Thecourtin LaborersLocal17 foundthat itwouldbethe |*%) sheerestsortofspeculationtodeterminehowthesedamagesmighthavebeenlessenedhadtheFunds h+&* adoptedthemeasuresdefendantsallegedlyinducedthemnottoadopt. Id. Wemustreachthesame  conclusion.    GiventhefactthattheFundsinjuriesareunquestionablyindirect,andconsideringthe t speculationrequiredtoprovetheFundsdamages,wemustconcludethattheFundsalleged ` damagesaretooremote,asamatteroflaw,tosupportrecovery.Consequently,wereversethetrial L  courtsdenialoftheTobaccoCompaniesmotiontodismissastotheFundsclaimsforfraudand 8  deceit,negligentmisrepresentationandconspiracy. $ t   TheTobaccoCompaniesalsoargueonappealthatthetrialcourterredinfailingtodismiss  L  theFundsclaimforviolationsoftheTCPA.TheTobaccoCompaniesassertthatTennesseecase  8  lawdemonstratesthattheTCPAincorporatesarequirementofproximatecausation.Theyalsoclaim $  thatthetrialcourtsinterpretationoftheTCPAconflictswithitsplainmeaningandwithjudicial   decisionsinotherjurisdictionsconstruingnearlyidenticalwordinginstateconsumerprotection   statutestorequirethatplaintiffsproveproximatecausation.     TennesseeCodeAnnotated47-18-109,enactedasapartofTCPA,providesthat: p 8  Anypersonwhosuffersanascertainableloss...asaresultoftheuseoremployment H byanotherpersonofanunfairordeceptiveactorpracticedeclaredtobeunlawfulby 4 thispart,maybringanactionindividuallytorecoveractualdamages. p   Tenn.CodeAnn.4718109(a)(1)(1995).In Harveyv.FordMotorCreditCo. ,No.03A019807 H CV00235,1999WL486894,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.July13,1999),thisCourtheldthatplaintiffs 4 assertingclaimsundertheTCPAarerequiredtoshowthatthedefendantswrongfulconduct   proximatelycausedtheirinjury. Id. ; seealso  Stracenerv.Swindle ,No.01A019502CH00047,   1995WL414873,at*3(Tenn.Ct.App.July14,1995)(stating proximatecausationmustbeproven  whethertheclaimisbasedonfraud...oronmerenegligence....).    Therefore,basedon Harvey and Stracener ,wefindthat,inordertoassertaclaimunderthe l TCPAinthiscase,theFundsmustshowthattheTobaccoCompanieswrongfulconduct X  proximatelycausedtheirinjury.InlightofourholdingabovethattheFundsallegedinjuriesare D! tooremoteasamatteroflaw,wealsoreversethetrialcourtsdenialoftheTobaccoCompanies 0"  motiontodismisswithrespecttotheFundsclaimforviolationsofthe_TCPA_.Thereisnodispute #l! astothetrialcourtsdismissalfotheplaintiffsantitrustclaims;therefore,thatportionofthetrial $X" courtsrulingisaffirmed. $D #   &"%   Thedecisionofthetrialcourtisaffirmedinpartandreversedinpart,assetforthabove.The  causeisremandedforentryofanorderdismissingtheplaintiffscomplaint.Costsaretaxedagainst  Appellees,_Steamfitters_ԀLocalUnionNo.614HealthandWelfareFund,andtheirsurety,forwhich  executionmayissueifnecessary. t      `     h     򀀀  L     `     h     HOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,J.  8