Gunmaker Remington settles lawsuit with Sandy Hook families for $73 million

[jmr40]

No doubt this and other legal cases had a draining effect on the company but it was far from the only reason Remington is no longer a company.

While $73 million sounds like a lot of money to me. In the grand scheme of things, it wasn't the biggest problem Remington had. They settled a $30+ million lawsuit in the 1990's because a handful of shotgun barrels burst. And that figure doesn't include what they paid for lawyers.

WHAT WAS THE LAWSUIT AGAINST REMINGTON ABOUT? | Trapshooters Forum

And this lawsuit was brought by shooters, not anti-gunners. Only a handful of the barrels burst, and no one was injured. But the purpose of the suit claimed that most Remington shotgun's value was reduced because of the problem. Everyone who owned certain models got a check ranging between $20-$50 to cover the reduced value.

And going back to the 1960's they were sued over 100 times because of the triggers used on virtually every bolt action rifle made since the 1940's. Every one of those were settled out of court. And most with non-disclosure statements. I can find at least one individual who got $17 million. Who knows what the others got?

And that is just the individual lawsuits. There have been 2 class action lawsuits. One for triggers made 2007-2014, and another for triggers made 1946-2006. Multiple millions were set aside to pay the expense of replacing triggers on those guns. We'll never know how much it cost Remington, or how much it cost them to pay lawyers. But I'd bet those combined far exceed the latest settlement.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

If I remember correctly it was his mother's gun. She should have been prosecuted for allowing him access to the gun given his past history, but since he shot her too the point is moot.

 

[herrwalther]

I knew this was going to be a bad lawsuit to allow to happen. Just recently read that 13 US states and Mexico are teaming up to sue a slew of manufacturers in violation of PLCAA. Smith & Wesson, Barrett, Beretta, Century Arms, Colt, Glock, and Ruger are the companies named in the suit. Too bad those companies won't cut off LEO sales to those states.

https://lawandcrime.com/lawsuit/13-...ernment-in-lawsuit-against-u-s-gun-companies/

 

[Machiavelli]

From NZ, this hole thing is pure BS, the thin end of the wedge all USA gun owners must stand up for the 2A the anti,s will be using tactics like this to further there cause.

 

[Roverguy]

There really aren’t any further implications from this. One, it’s a settlement, not a ruling.Two, the suit was over advertising, not something protected by PLCAA. Three, there is no “Remington”. It’s gone. The plaintiffs “settled” with a bankruptcy provision, not a firearms manufacturer.

I can’t imagine what it would have been like to have my child gunned down by that little murderous thief. Remington was guilty of nothing. I hope this journey and it’s Phyrric “victory” will give some of families of the victims some solace somehow.

 

[DTL]

Outrageous... they should have sued the parents of the shooter who knew he was troubled and gave him access to firearms.

 

[lightman]

This was not good in my opinion. This stuff nearly put the small air craft manufactures out of business years ago.

 

[rust collector]

This was not good in my opinion. This stuff nearly put the small air craft manufactures out of business years ago.

It did. Most are either gone or owned by Chinese companies currently.

 

[wiscoaster]

I don't understand why they'd settle. They should be protected under the PLCAA.

No, they're not protected under the PLCAA for this suit, and no this decision to settle isn't as bad as it seems, and isn't necessarily setting a precedent.

Pretty good explanation here:

 

[wgp]

I doubt that many people who are not lawyers realize how few lawsuits ever go to trial. Regardless of what either side believes the applicable law to be, the outcome of a trial is unpredictable. Beyond that, an appeal from a verdict you don't like is not a "do-over", and the issues that are considered on appeal are usually quite limited. Also consider that a trial, and appeal, can literally take years. All of these things often compel the parties to seek some kind of settlement.

 

[Blues1]

This may sound alarmist, but don't count on the future ability to purchase new firearms. If this starts happening with any regularity, mass commercial production will be a thing of the past. Plan accordingly for your future family members.

Agreed. I've been planning on this for years. My grandkids and their kids are set.

 

[SmeeAgain]

Rather than caving... they should have subpoenaed "all documents" from city, county, state & federal.
This would include autopsy reports, death certificates, school maintenance & financial records, law enforcement records etc.
"IF" everything was provided, which it wouldn't be... the truth on what happened or didn't happen would be there.

 

[mcb]

Rather than caving... they should have subpoenaed "all documents" from city, county, state & federal.
This would include autopsy reports, death certificates, school maintenance & financial records, law enforcement records etc.
"IF" everything was provided, which it wouldn't be... the truth on what happened or didn't happen would be there.

Who caved? Remington is no more, you can't cave when you do not exist. The settlement was between the orphaned insurance companies and the plantifs. The insurance companies were give a pool of money to settle legal issues for the former Remington company as part of the bankruptcy. They had zero motivation to continue the legal battle if they could find a settlement that fit within their budget.

 

[jrmiddleton425]

No one settled with Remington for so much as a penny.

As others have posted, Remington Outdoors Company no longer exists. A "take-it-or-leave-it" offer was made by the former company's insurance carrier.

 

[wiscoaster]

...The insurance companies were give a pool of money to settle legal issues for the former Remington company as part of the bankruptcy. They had zero motivation to continue the legal battle if they could find a settlement that fit within their budget.

And this particular spin had no fit within the media's gun narrative news budget and so never formed a part of their reported stories about it, either.

 

[Encoreman]

So this means that a person who is obese can sue the fork manufacturer for his overweight issue? Or a car manufacturer that makes cars that go 140mph and far exceeds even the highest speed limit in the U.S.A.

 

[wiscoaster]

Those would be the reasonable and logical analogies, but then, they don't involve guns, which are inherently evil and harmful by their very nature.

 

[Sniper66]

And they wonder why we buy lots and lots of guns and ammo.

 

[Steve S.]

Firearms demand is stronger than ever. The 2A infers that if you don’t use them, you loose them. The Canadian truckers were dismantled because the other side had all of the guns - the truckers were not willing to meet force with equal force. Putin will prevail (to some degree) because his force is not equaled by the opposition. You don’t loose God-given rights because of an insurance settlement, you loose those freedoms because you do not do what is necessary to win.
The 2A clearly states what is necessary to win - it says nothing about insurance settlements or gun manufactures or NRA dues or gun blog tough talk - the right of the people to talk the government to death shall not be infringed? The other side is counting on you to not do what is necessary, to not do what it takes. We talk a lot here about the 2A and my impression of all of that talk is that most haven’t a clue about what the 2A is really saying. The 2A is about going all the way for your freedom, giving it all because it is right, because giving everything is worth it.
Our rights will be dismantled because there is no fire in the gut. The NRA is a business model, labor unions are a business model, most religions are business models and yes, our government is a business model - they all serve those financially that control the model.
The 2A literally states that the people are authorized to use deadly force to retain your rights from those that will take those rights (think about it, what are those “arms” purposed for other than deadly force).
The best example of the 2A in action that I can think of is the Civil War. Regardless of what you think of the causes, it was crystal clear that both sides believed in the fight - believed so strongly that they were willing to give everything and then somebody won and somebody lost - but they took that fight ruthlessly to the other side - they laid everything on the line.
Our Constitution will be conquered by the people’s very fear of what the government will do to them that the 2A was written to overcome. Again, if you do not use it, you will loose it.

 

[Airborne Falcon]

I don't understand why they'd settle. They should be protected under the PLCAA.

I'm assuming they did the math and decided that paying out now would cost less than lengthy litigation but what precedent does it set for when someone wants to sue them or any other gun manufacturer again?

https://www.axios.com/sandy-hook-remington-arms-liable-0b504b12-e9a7-44ed-aa49-45271e98d998.html

View attachment 1059821

They were hiding something. They wanted to keep something from getting-out. Who knows what it was ... probably an email or text or something, who knows. But they wanted it shut down and put to rest.

Whatever it was it will eventually come out ... it always does.

I cannot begin to imagine what a $73 million dollar screwup in a text or email looks like.

 

[mcb]

They were hiding something. They wanted to keep something from getting-out. Who knows what it was ... probably an email or text or something, who knows. But they wanted it shut down and put to rest.

Whatever it was it will eventually come out ... it always does.

I cannot begin to imagine what a $73 million dollar screwup in a text or email looks like.

They settled because Remington Outdoor Company, the defendant does not exist any longer. The former Remington Outdoor Company's insurance companies settled the case because they did not have a dog in the fight other than to get out with minimal financial damage. The received a pool of money from the second bankruptcy and was told to resolve the pending litigation (settle or trail/verdict). Remington fought this lawsuit from day 1 and through the first bankruptcy and right up to the moment the judge drop the gavel on the second bankruptcy dissolving the Remington Outdoor Company. Had Remington chose to settle this case they would have been blackballed right out of the industry and despite the many poor choices Remington made over the years that was one they would not have done. The settlement was between the plaintiffs and the insurance companies there is was no Remington left to be involved in that settlement.

 

[Airborne Falcon]

I'm not sure Remington actually had any say-so in it MCB ... it's usually the insurance companies that have the final say as-to-when to throw-in the towel.

Insurance companies fight tooth and nail to not pay one red cent .... unless there is something that might make the worm turn against them.

The big tobacco loss was/is a case in point. They had it beat until the memos and letters came out along with the minutes of two meetings ... they began settling immediately afterwards.

IMHO there is absolutely no way the insurance companies agreed to settle unless there was something they thought might cause them an issue.

Now, if what you are saying is that the BK courts and the financiers and the interested parties backing the deal wanted this settled so-as-to not assume any of the lingering liability once the breakup was finalized and all assets sold-off at auction basically ... that makes sense provided there was a break-even or major cut of losses by agreeing to the settlement. I mean you're right, they had already been at this for a decade and it was headed to another appeals court, probably on a federal level. Remington's inability to get it out of Connecticut and into a Federal Court from the get-go was a major loss for Remington right out of the gate.

There just about had to have been something .... I mean $73 million dollars ain't chump change.

ETA: Just found a good synopsis of the case and a breakdown as-to why they settled ... and even this author implies that there must be something that the insurers' attorneys deemed potentially unwinnable about this case if it dragged-on for another ten years.

https://thereload.com/analysis-why-did-remington-agree-to-pay-73-million-to-the-sandy-hook-families/

.... and it just hit me. Makes me wonder. I wonder if they were worried that the political climate and protections might evaporate in the coming decade?

 

[mcb]

I'm not sure Remington actually had any say-so in it MCB ... it's usually the insurance companies that have the final say as-to-when to throw-in the towel.

Insurance companies fight tooth and nail to not pay one red cent .... unless there is something that might make the worm turn against them.

The big tobacco loss was/is a case in point. They had it beat until the memos and letters came out along with the minutes of two meetings ... they began settling immediately afterwards.

IMHO there is absolutely no way the insurance companies agreed to settle unless there was something they thought might cause them an issue.

Now, if what you are saying is that the BK courts and the financiers and the interested parties backing the deal wanted this settled so-as-to not assume any of the lingering liability once the breakup was finalized and all assets sold-off at auction basically ... that makes sense provided there was a break-even or major cut of losses by agreeing to the settlement. I mean you're right, they had already been at this for a decade and it was headed to another appeals court, probably on a federal level. Remington's inability to get it out of Connecticut and into a Federal Court from the get-go was a major loss for Remington right out of the gate.

There just about had to have been something .... I mean $73 million dollars ain't chump change.

ETA: Just found a good synopsis of the case and a breakdown as-to why they settled ... and even this author implies that there must be something that the insurers' attorneys deemed potentially unwinnable about this case if it dragged-on for another ten years.

https://thereload.com/analysis-why-did-remington-agree-to-pay-73-million-to-the-sandy-hook-families/

.... and it just hit me. Makes me wonder. I wonder if they were worried that the political climate and protections might evaporate in the coming decade?

Remington had zero say in this because the Remington Outdoor Company that was the defendant in the Sandyhook case ceased to exist as a corporate or legal entity as of September 2020. Even the article you linked states that in its second paragraph.

As for the issuance companies why fight it? They has a pool of 73 million dollars set aside from the bankruptcy. They were never going to see that money. That money would be consumed by their lawyers or paid out to settle the case. Even if they had won the case any remaining money would have gone back to the Remington estate to pay off other legal cases or debtors that were still owed money. Why tie up your legal team for a dead company. You gain nothing by winning the case and might loose something as the PR of winning against the Sandy Hook victims is probably seen as bad optics for an insurance company. Easier to simply hand over the money, that isn't and never will be yours, and leave your legal resources available for other more lucrative legal cases.

 

[redcon1]

If I remember correctly it was his mother's gun. She should have been prosecuted for allowing him access to the gun given his past history, but since he shot her too the point is moot.

Making family members fair game in these matters seems like a very slippery slope.

 

[Airborne Falcon]

Remington had zero say in this because the Remington Outdoor Company that was the defendant in the Sandyhook case ceased to exist as a corporate or legal entity as of September 2020. Even the article you linked states that in its second paragraph.

As for the issuance companies why fight it? They has a pool of 73 million dollars set aside from the bankruptcy. They were never going to see that money. That money would be consumed by their lawyers or paid out to settle the case. Even if they had won the case any remaining money would have gone back to the Remington estate to pay off other legal cases or debtors that were still owed money. Why tie up your legal team for a dead company. You gain nothing by winning the case and might loose something as the PR of winning against the Sandy Hook victims is probably seen as bad optics for an insurance company. Easier to simply hand over the money, that isn't and never will be yours, and leave your legal resources available for other more lucrative legal cases.

Gotcha