Remington Reaches $73 Million Settlement

[Old Navy]

 

[CT10ring]

Having personally been through something similar, I can tell you that facts, who is right, who is wrong, and even the law doesn't matter. It's totally and completely about money and nothing else.

PopCharlie

I totally understand, personally. Cost - benefit analysis. Right or morality - not in the equation.
I left a lot of money on the table, but I kept my soul.

 

[Drolds72]

So when this gets mandated, will I be able to sue the manufacturer because a drunk driver found a way to defeat it?

Drunk Driving Could Start to End Forever as Soon as 2024, Government Says

New bipartisan Senate bill calls for onboard test equipment in every new car to prevent it from starting if driver's BAC is 0.08 or higher.

www.caranddriver.com

 

[fx77]

Only safe way to advertise is to show a picture of the rifle then a below it " Rifle For Sale" then a link to only facts. No emotion or sales pitch.

Otherwise there will be legal interpretation of whatever else is said about the item

 

[darkangel_r2]

You are right in the sense that if you want to hire your own attorney and take it to trial you certainly may. If you would like your insurance company to cover your legal fees and not risk going to trial but settle within the limits of your policy while they act like your opinion and values matter they are truly interested in what's going to cost them the least amount of money and act accordingly despite your deep rooted belief you are in the right.

If your liability insurance terms sign over your POA, removes the decision of what legal representation to hire, or gives them the ability to without your say so make legal decisions on your behalf you have done something wrong. And I doubt this happened.

Using imaginary numbers closer to a smaller business scenario If you have 5 million in gen liability and another 5 miliion in an umbrella type policy and your ins. company can settle the case for 1.5 million and your company is broke as joke how are you going to fund this righteous legal battle and what are you going to do when a judge or jury awards the plaintiff 20 million?

Just food for thought, no response neccessary.

Like I said several times above I'd make a federal judge set legal precedent for holding a company accountable for misuse of a legally sold and purchased item. And in the unlikely result that I am found liable my company would be worth the concrete proof that we live in a dictatorship where legal warfare is used to destroy businesses selectively that the establishment doesn't like.

 

[chutem]

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

True. Precedence for sure. Good point CT, thanks.

 

[David Milisock]

True. Precedence for sure. Good point CT, thanks.

Now that's a fact.

 

[David Milisock]

Without knowing exactly the details of the corporate holdings this minus may have an advantage or a mitigating influence on tax exposure which influenced the decision.

Clearly Remingtons marketing department had their heads up their butts. I've seen holsters and firearms marketed like fashion accessories. Firearms are NOT toys, symbols of masculinity, centerpieces or to be taken lightly.

DON'T ADVERTISE THEM AS SUCH! You'll make yourself a target in court.

 

[4xforfun]

TOTAL BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!! MY UNCLE WAS KILLED BY A DRUNK DRIVER SO THERE FOR WE SHOULD SUE THE CAR INDUSTRY!!!!!!
TOTAL BULLSHIT!!!!
YOU AND ONLY YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS!!!!!
SHAME ON WHAT EVER PART OF REMINGTON THAT SETTLED!!!!!

It will NEVER happen....because....even LIBERALS drive cars. They don't want the price to go up.

 

[Ccrider]

Like I said several times above I'd make a federal judge

That’s really funny. This statement makes clear you have not had much dealings with federal judges.

 

[darkangel_r2]

That’s really funny. This statement makes clear you have not had much dealings with federal judges.

Don't ever intend to. But if the supreme court allows a farce like this to proceed I'd make a circus out of it.

 

[SShooterZ]

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.

Grabbed this quote from an online article, “After the Cerberus private equity firm bought Remington in 2007, it launched aggressive campaign that pushed sales of AR-15s through product placement in first-person shooter videogames and by touting the AR-15 as an effective killing machine.”

Not sure I saw the ads either but I believe this was the stance of the lawsuit.

 

[lachoneus]

I am a practicing attorney, and I have read all the comments up to this point. Here are a few of my observations:

1. Our legal system is not designed to deliver "justice,” at least not in the sense that we commonly attribute to that word. It is simply designed to resolve disputes without having parties resort to physical violence. If you have a dispute, you can either negotiate a resolution with the other party, or allow the dispute to be decided by a judge or a jury. Judges and juries are normal people. They view evidence and legal principles through the biases and prejudices they have formed through their own life experience. They also make mistakes. They may view your evidence differently than you do; they may not believe you or your witnesses; they may not like you, and therefore not accept your side of the story. If you get "justice" from this type of system, it is more by accident than by design.
2. Remington as a company underwent two bankruptcies. As noted elsewhere, its assets were sold in bankruptcy and it no longer existed as a going concern. It did not make this settlement. The companies that insured Remington made this settlement.
3. The trial court initially dismissed the plaintiffs’ case against Remington, concluding that it was barred by federal law. The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the dismissal, finding that state law allowed plaintiffs to try to prove a causal link between Remington’s marketing and the shooting deaths, something the Court itself labeled a “Herculean task.”
4. If proving that causal link was so difficult, why did the insurance companies not fight the case to the end? Only the companies themselves know that answer, but I can hazard an informed guess: in their view, the benefits of settling for $73 million outweighed the risk of facing a far greater damage award. Insurance companies manage risk to survive. They survive by paying less than what they charge in premiums. They found a dollar amount they could pay without jeopardizing their survival and elected to pay it.
5. Did Remington have a right to veto its insurance carriers’ decision to settle? Very unlikely. The only policies I have seen that extend that privilege are some medical malpractice policies. There may be others, but they are very rare. In a broad sense, an insurance company has a contractual duty to defend and protect its insured up to the limits of the policy, and in most cases, it has the right to decide how it will use its assets to fulfill its duty. Check your homeowners policy or automobile policy. I think you will find that you cannot prevent your insurer from settling a claim against you over your objection.
6. A settlement does not create a legal precedent that is binding on other courts. Only final judicial decisions can do that. But this settlement may indeed make it more difficult for firearm makers to get insurance because it recognizes a new class of risk. However, insurance companies exist to make money, and they often find ways to manage even new risks so they can sell policies. This settlement was based on several unique facts that do not apply across the board to other makers, so there is still hope that the makers can get insurance and remain in business.

 

[DHuffman]

/\ well said and true to my real life experiences.

Many people in this thread making comments based on thier ideals and no real world experience.

Thanks for posting.

 

[Ccrider]

I am a practicing attorney, and I have read all the comments up to this point. Here are a few of my observations:

1. Our legal system is not designed to deliver "justice,” at least not in the sense that we commonly attribute to that word. It is simply designed to resolve disputes without having parties resort to physical violence. If you have a dispute, you can either negotiate a resolution with the other party, or allow the dispute to be decided by a judge or a jury. Judges and juries are normal people. They view evidence and legal principles through the biases and prejudices they have formed through their own life experience. They also make mistakes. They may view your evidence differently than you do; they may not believe you or your witnesses; they may not like you, and therefore not accept your side of the story. If you get "justice" from this type of system, it is more by accident than by design.
2. Remington as a company underwent two bankruptcies. As noted elsewhere, its assets were sold in bankruptcy and it no longer existed as a going concern. It did not make this settlement. The companies that insured Remington made this settlement.
3. The trial court initially dismissed the plaintiffs’ case against Remington, concluding that it was barred by federal law. The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the dismissal, finding that state law allowed plaintiffs to try to prove a causal link between Remington’s marketing and the shooting deaths, something the Court itself labeled a “Herculean task.”
4. If proving that causal link was so difficult, why did the insurance companies not fight the case to the end? Only the companies themselves know that answer, but I can hazard and informed guess: in their view, the benefits of settling for $73 million outweighed the risk of facing a far greater damage award. Insurance companies manage risk to survive. They survive by paying less than what they charge in premiums. They found a dollar amount they could pay without jeopardizing their survival and elected to pay it.
5. Did Remington have a right to veto its insurance carriers’ decision to settle? Very unlikely. The only policies I have seen that extend that privilege are some medical malpractice policies. There may be others, but they are very rare. In a broad sense, an insurance company has a contractual duty to defend and protect its insured up to the limits of the policy, and in most cases, it has the right to decide how it will use its assets to fulfill its duty. Check your homeowners policy or automobile policy. I think you will find that you cannot prevent your insurer from settling a claim against you over your objection.
6. A settlement does not create a legal precedent that is binding on other courts. Only final judicial decisions can do that. But this settlement may indeed make it more difficult for firearm makers to get insurance because it recognizes a new class of risk. However, insurance companies exist to make money, and they often find ways to manage even new risks so they can sell policies. This settlement was based on several unique facts that do not apply across the board to other makers, so there is still hope that the makers can get insurance and remain in business.

Pretty much what I said in my posts in much fewer words. You must be one of those lawyers that charge your clients by the word.

 

[lachoneus]

Pretty much what I said in my posts in much fewer words. You must be one of those lawyers that charge your clients by the word.

I could have said: “Insurance companies, not Remington, settled because courts are unpredictable.” I still would have charged the same, and come in far below your word count. But brevity can breed bewilderment, and pronouncing conclusions is rarely persuasive. Most people want to understand how you reached your conclusions, so I added some explanation.

 

[ebb]

I must be from another unparallel universe. The sales pitch that remington used may have been responsible for selling the rifle to the owner, but she was murdered to get the rifle. How is the sales pitch even relevant.