of an agreement both before and after May 5, 1982. Id. In deciding that issue, the jury had to determine whether or not an individual plaintiff relied upon acts done in furtherance of a conspiracy to conceal. Thus, as the Engle case demonstrated, the issue of reliance upon deceptive statements made by a conspirator within the statute of repose window is an individualized jury issue. Although the record in this case contains evidence which arguably could support a jury’s finding that the plaintiff relied upon a co-conspirator’s deceptive statement or omission after May 5, 1982, the trial court’s entry of partial summary judgment on the statute of repose defense deprived Philip Morris of its right to defend on that issue and have the jury make that determination. See Naugle, — So.3d at - (<HOLDING>); but cf. Martin, 53 So.3d 1060, 1069 (Fla. 1st
holding that it was for the jury to determine whether the plaintiff would have continued to smoke cigarettes if not for philip morriss nondisclosures and whether the plaintiff justifiably relied on the false controversy created by the tobacco industry after may 5 1982 holding that plaintiff failed to establish pretext where plaintiff was terminated after the employer conducted an investigation into a subordinates allegations of misconduct on the part of the plaintiff and believed the allegations to be true even though plaintiff presented evidence in the lawsuit that the allegations may have been false holding that when determining prejudice under the objective test relevant considerations include 1 whether the extrinsic evidence was received by the jury and the manner in which it was received 2 whether it was available to the jury for a lengthy period of time 3 whether it was discussed and considered extensively by the jury 4 whether it was introduced before a jury verdict was reached and if so at what point during the deliberations and 5 whether it was reasonably likely to affect the verdict considering the strength of the governments case and whether the governments case outweighed any possible prejudice caused by the extrinsic evidence holding the question of whether an accomplice is credible and the weight to be given to the testimony are issues for the jury to determine holding that the plaintiffs could not satisfy the causation elements of products liability and negligence claims by proving that all cigarettes can potentially cause a user to become addicted because a jury would still be required to determine for each class member whether he or she is addicted to cigarettes and if so whether defendants and which defendant caused the addiction