With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 89 So.3d 937, 947-48 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (rejecting Philip Morris’s contention that the plaintiff “was obligated to show further or continued reliance upon the alleged last act in furtherance of the conspiracy”). The trial court thus erred in striking Philip Morris’s statute of repose defense to the conspiracy claim. Because the jury awarded punitive damages on the conspiracy claim, we reverse the punitive damages award. However, for the reasons stated below, we do not find the amount of the punitive damages award excessive; we will thus allow the award to stand if on retrial the plaintiff prevails on the statute of repose issue. See Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Cohen, 102 So.3d 11, 16 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); see also Elmore v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 895 So.2d 475, 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (<HOLDING>). As we explained in Cohen, “[ljimiting the new

A: holding that superior courts erred in granting judgment nov on a wrongful death claim and remanding for new trial on that claim and on damages
B: holding that trial court erred by granting a directed verdict on statute of limitations defense and remanding for a new trial on the statute of limitations only
C: holding that the trial court erred in granting the school boards posttrial motion for directed verdict because although the school board timely moved for a directed verdict during trial it did not serve its motion for directed verdict until the eleventh day after the verdict
D: holding that superior court erred in granting judgment nov and remanding for a new trial generally
B.