Remington Offers To Settle Sandy Hook Lawsuit

[jag22]

As I suspected, I read an article that indicates the settlement offer is from two of the four insurance companies involved. I don't know how much influence Rem would even have over that. Do settlements have to have their approval, and who would that be if the company no longer exists? Would all four insurers have to agree for the deal to go thru? Do they have a secret agenda or is it more of the media pushing their agenda with a half truth headline. Who the heck knows.

 

[jmorris]

I feel bad for the families and the victims, but how are gun manufacturers responsible for the act of a demented human?

…that steals a rifle from someone they murdered.

I understand the logic, 33 million is cheaper than the lawyers cost to go through the case to conclusion and there are very few mass shooting incidents.

Certainly in a better position as far as liability they say alcohol and auto manufacturers, from a death toll perspective.

 

[Spats McGee]

....Do settlements have to have their approval, and who would that be if the company no longer exists? Would all four insurers have to agree for the deal to go thru?....

As a basic rule, anybody shelling out the money for the settlement has to approve it. I've settled cases in which my individual defendant wanted to go to trial, but the agency holding the checkbook wanted to settle.

 

[F-111 John]

Since this case was allowed by SCOTUS to move forward under state advertising laws, was there any evidence that Adam Lanza ever saw the Bushmaster advertising in question?

Also, since the AR platform is more or less fungible as identical rifles in identical colors, with identical characteristics are sold by several different manufacturers and are nearly impossible to distinguish between without reading the stamping on the receiver, and the theory is that advertising caused Lanza to commit mass murder, why haven't other AR manufacturers such as Ruger, S&W, DMPS, Sig, etc., been cited in the lawsuits as codefendants who also advertised the AR using military references?

 

[Rule3]

Can people injured by a collision with a Ford Pickup with Military Grade Aluminum beds, sue for damages?

Yes, I know a bit far fetched but their TV ads sure showed how tough they were/are.

I still want to sue all the cigarette companies for making me smoke for so many years. There ads made me do it!
Same for all the Beer I drank!

 

[CapnMac]

was there any evidence that

Well, until a trial is actually begun, no "evidence" of any sort has been presented.

There will likely be a great deal of push-pull over the various "discovery" items both sides will want and require.

SCOTUS only ruled on a pre-trial motion at this point. And on an extremely fine point of law. To my knowledge & memory, that ruling was also not "precedent." That it was to address a specific point of legal appeal only. For only this one case.

 

[CapnMac]

Can people injured by a collision with a Ford Pickup with Military Grade Aluminum beds, sue for damages?

Sure. They only need, 1, a lawyer willing to represent that position, and 2, a Court saying that the supposition has standing within its jurisdiction.
The latter often being harder to do than the former.

 

[Roverguy]

Well, until a trial is actually begun, no "evidence" of any sort has been presented.

There will likely be a great deal of push-pull over the various "discovery" items both sides will want and require.

SCOTUS only ruled on a pre-trial motion at this point. And on an extremely fine point of law. To my knowledge & memory, that ruling was also not "precedent." That it was to address a specific point of legal appeal only. For only this one case.

Very good point. Avoiding discovery is also a good reason to settle. Given the mess of the Rem Outdoors bankruptcy, what the prospecting law firms might get a hold of in discovery could be very dangerous in terms of fueling litigation against other firearms manufacturers. See link above to similar suit against S&W. Since there are only a few insurers carrying liability insurance for firearms manufacturers, a settlement that limits such discovery would be looked on favorably.

 

[CapnMac]

Avoiding discovery is also a good reason to settle.

Well, it's nine years' now--avoiding is probably not an issue.
(Pretty sure most barristers would recommend against attempting to 'avoid' that process, too.)

Now, the process of Discovery is yet another tool in any good attorney's toolbox. It's a double-edged sword, too. You harp too much on picayune omissions and you likely get buried in a dump of repetitive "replay all" group memos that wastes your admin time and gain you nothing.

But, haggling over what's in the Discovery data dump is a way to drag things out. Sometimes. Maybe. Perhaps.

 

[herrwalther]

I worry about what kind of precedent this sets in allowing lawsuits against firearm manufacturers. Most sensible courts would throw out a lawsuit against Ford, Chevy etc for a DUI. But somehow it is okay to target firearms.

 

[F-111 John]

I worry about what kind of precedent this sets in allowing lawsuits against firearm manufacturers. Most sensible courts would throw out a lawsuit against Ford, Chevy etc for a DUI. But somehow it is okay to target firearms.

One can never say never when it comes to a 'sensible court.' There was a decision out of New Mexico that now holds gas station operators liable if they sell gasoline to a drunk driver who subsequently causes an accident with injury or loss of life.