Remington Reaches $73 Million Settlement

[Ccrider]

Are you inferring that remington didn't have a say in offering a settlement or taking it to trial when they are listed on court case? Reminton arms Co V Soto.

I am saying that we do not know the answer to your question, and will not know unless we see the terms of the insurance policy. Assuming final settlement authority is vested with the carrier and that the carrier decided to settle, sure, Remington could override the decision, sacrifice coverage and go to trial. Do you think that a business is going to do that?

 

[darkangel_r2]

I am saying that we do not know the answer to your question, and will not know unless we see the terms of the insurance policy. Assuming final settlement authority is vested with the carrier and that the carrier decided to settle, sure, Remington could override the decision, sacrifice coverage and go to trial. Do you think that a business is going to do that?

We both agreed that they should. I just said they can.

 

[jelenko]

Also, wasn't the claim about inappropriate marketing? I.e., the suit wasn't about product liability but about inappropriate marketing.

 

[Minshooter]

Wasn’t the whole suit was based on Remington advertising their rifles as “best killing machine”? Dumb advertising by Remington and opened themselves to litigation as they’re literally advertising their product to kill which is what happened at Sandy Hook.

Can you furnish any example of that language used in a Remington/Bushmaster ad?
The ad usually displayed is the Bushmaster "Consider your man card reissued", which did have the words,
"...instantly ending the discussion for any who would doubt you".
With total support of the First Amendment, in my opinion, that didn't help Remington in court.

 

[darkangel_r2]

This is where you are wrong. They may ask you for your expertise to help lessen the blow but if there's an inkling of a chance it could go beyond the limits of the coverage in a court of law they settle.
Imagine yourself or your company sitting in the back seat along for the drive.
While you have paid the premiums they are going to handle it the way they see fit.

I don't think I am wrong. Unless you sign over power of attorney of the company over to the insurers who employ your legal team you retain the ultimate say over the legal course of action your legal team pursues on your behalf in a lawsuit. I'm pretty sure that's how it works. They may slap you with a ton of legalese to try to coerce you into a course of action but the decision to offer settlements or pursue a trial would ultimately be the decision of the defendant.

The only thing you do is jump through hoops providing documents, giving depositions etc for years. When it's over and settled within the limits of your coverage you breathe a sigh of relief and start living your life again.

The first thing the plaintiff attorneys ask for in disclosure is any insurance the defendant has to cover a liability claim.

Then the plaintiff attorney goes to work figuring how to get as much of that money as possible.

If you have the conviction and resources to go it alone in a court of law you are open to getting slapped with a settlement way beyond the limits of your coverage.

Nobody really wants to go to trial. The insurance money is the low hanging fruit for the plaintiff and the safety net for the defendant.

It's not about anything but the money once a suit is filed

Like I said above make a federal judge set the precedent that a company can be held accountable for someone else's misuse of a product that was legally sold and legally purchased. Make them cross that bridge.

 

[Gary C]

How is it that Big Tobacco is still in business you ask?
Politicians in their pocket for sure.
I checked last year and CDC listed 480,000 plus tobacco related deaths
in 2020 I believe was the number.
Think about that for a while.

 

[Coyotefurharvester]

Doesn't matter why the settlement, to the media, their take is Remington lost BECAUSE REMINGTON MARKETED A WEAPON THAT SHOULD NOT A BEEN SOLD TO THE PUBLIC. Another step toward the 2030 great reset. The great reset is endorsed by the White House website, just as the World Economic forum. The loss of our constitutional rights is THE agenda of the current administration, But they need financial, social, military chaos. That's why, massive spending, fossil fuel restrictions, balloon economy, war on capitalism. Truckers,parents, republicans are labeled domestic terrorists.

 

[sandwarrior]

When gun violence and firearms deaths came up 4-5 years ago on social media, I did a fair amount of research before responding. I learned the alcohol related deaths involving vehicles eclipsed firearms by a significant amount, then posted the results of what I found.
The question I posed in reply was- "Where is the clamor to ban alcohol?"
I had no replies.

We ain't doin' that again. Violence of every kind went up...WAAAAYYY UP!

 

[gdbleb]

How is it that Big Tobacco is still in business you ask?

Big government doesn't really want you to stop smoking. They desperately need the money from the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement.
"the (tobacco) companies agreed to curtail or cease certain tobacco marketing practices, as well as to pay, in perpetuity, various annual payments to the states to compensate them for some of the medical costs of caring for persons with smoking-related illnesses."

If we don't watch out this will be the model for our hobby.

 

[Gary C]

gdbleb
480,000 deaths in ONE YEAR
NO mandates from our government on this but they continually try and mandate for COVID.
Why have we not heard anything regarding this in news?
I trust we all know that answer.

 

[rijndael]

This will advance the cancellation of the firearms industry. If insurance companies don't want to shell out millions in settlements, they'll just not insure the companies. No insurance, no business, no guns.

 

[300_whisper]

Once you've paid the Danegeld, you'll never get rid of the Dane.

Their aim is to bankrupt the firearms industry, to make firearms impossible to get.

nooo…their aim is to profit off their dead kids…lol

 

[Catfur]

I am saying that we do not know the answer to your question, and will not know unless we see the terms of the insurance policy. Assuming final settlement authority is vested with the carrier and that the carrier decided to settle, sure, Remington could override the decision, sacrifice coverage and go to trial. Do you think that a business is going to do that?

Remember, there is no "going concern" Remington Arms Company to object to the settlement. They went bankrupt and were dissolved, with their assets, including the name, sold off by the bankruptcy court.

There is a rump entity bearing the original companies name, but it has no real assets, or employees, etc... It probably only has one officer (the trustee), who is probably a lawyer for the firm appointed the trustee by the bankruptcy court, or something similar, and it only exists to handle outstanding claims like this.

Random lawyer dude who "is" Remington Arms Company for purposes of this litigation probably has zero incentive (and nobody to collect any more fees from for that work even if he did want to) to object when the insurance carrier says we want to settle.

 

[Catfur]

nooo…their aim is to profit off their dead kids…lol

Well, that would be the vultu... er lawyers aim, but the gun control industry's aim is to run everyone associated with firearms out of business by making it too expensive to operate.

 

[300_whisper]

Well, that would be the vultu... er lawyers aim, but the gun control industry's aim is to run everyone associated with firearms out of business by making it too expensive to operate.

I hope when I get into a fender bender I can sue Apple and ATT for the person texting and driving. I can sue Ford since they didn’t protect me adequately enough and I can sue the offenders vehicle company for letting that person drive a 2 ton weapon.

 

[CT10ring]

Yep, its called Case law. And you can bet, this case will be quoted by many attys in future cases. Precedence for certain.

this is a settlement. Not a judgement. not case law.

 

[300_whisper]

this is a settlement. Not a judgement. not case law.

I understand, but it can pressure manufacturers into settling just to avoid a trial. And Im sure it can be brought up that Remington settled so their must be some admission of guilt. Im grasping for straws here, but where there’s a lawyer there’s a way.

 

[CT10ring]

This will advance the cancellation of the firearms industry. If insurance companies don't want to shell out millions in settlements, they'll just not insure the companies. No insurance, no business, no guns.

Insurance premium cost for gun mfrs will rise; likely. Some costs will get passed through. Reinsurers may raise rates - a bit. Costs will be passed on to ALL lines, most likely in higher rates. We live in the golden age of firearm manufacturing. In the U.S., Italy, Turkey, Czech Republic, Belgium, Finland and Sweden among others. perspective: https://www.wsj.com/articles/tornado-insurance-payouts-on-track-to-hit-5-billion-11639745682

 

[300_whisper]

That’s the problem with America’s legal system. It’s not about what’s right. It’s about what’s cheapest.

 

[CT10ring]

I understand, but it can pressure manufacturers into settling just to avoid a trial. And Im sure it can be brought up that Remington settled so their must be some admission of guilt. Im grasping for straws here, but where there’s a lawyer there’s a way.

I think the novel line of legal reasoning / argument- "marketing" so as to Remington to be found culpable- is a needle in a haystack. I'm shocked that Remington and its Insurers caved...Adam Lanza was not persuaded to buy this AR-15 based on any marketing / ads. His mother bought and owned this particular rifle. I don't think there is any precedent set and most likely, the specifics are sealed. my .02. Me, I'm looking at this if I can find one. https://www.eurooptic.com/Remington-M24-Sniper-Rifle.aspx