Families of Sandy Hook victims settle with Remington - BBC News
By: Anthony Zurcher BBC
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Francine Wheeler with a photograph of her son Ben
A company that made a rifle used in one of the US's deadliest school shootings has settled with the families of victims for $73m (£53.9m).
The settlement from Remington Arms comes in response to a lawsuit brought by the families of nine of 26 victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre.
The case marks the first time a gun-maker has faced liability for a mass shooting.
Until now, the industry has been enjoyed immunity from litigation.
Each family will receive a share of the settlement, but other details of the deal were not disclosed.
Josh Koskoff, a lawyer representing the families of victims, said they were delighted by the outcome because their focus was on "preventing the next Sandy Hook".
"Our loss is irreversible, in the sense this outcome is neither redemptive nor restorative," Lenny Pozner and Veronique De la Rosa, whose six-year-old son Noah was killed, wrote in testimony released after the settlement.
"What is lost remains lost," they added. "However, the resolution does provide a measure of accountability in an industry that has thus far operated with impunity."
This makes future lawsuits more likely
In the early 2000s, the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups pushed states and the federal government to enact laws to protect gun manufacturers from financial responsibility for deaths that result from the use of their products. Their crowning achievement was the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, passed by Congress and signed by President George W Bush in 2005.
That law has shielded many gun manufacturers from legal exposure, but it was not enough to protect Remington and its Bushmaster AR-15, used by Adam Lanza to kill 20 children and six school employees in Newtown, Connecticut.
The families of five adults and four child victims claimed Remington pitched its rifle to "at-risk" young men in violent video games and with bombastic, militaristic language. They pointed to an exception in the federal law that prohibited illegal marketing claims. Remington's decision to pay $73 million to end the lawsuit suggests the company weighed the risk of going to trial and opened its chequebook.
This settlement may encourage state governments and gun-control advocates who want to hold manufacturers financially responsible for gun violence to press on - offering them hope that existing legal protections won't always be an insurmountable obstacle.
One example cited by Mr Koskoff featured an image of a rifle along with the words "consider your man card reissued". The lawsuit alleged that the campaign formed part of a larger and "aggressive" marketing effort that included product placement in video games.
"I had thought the case was about the gun, but it's just as much about the greed," he said at a news conference on Tuesday.
The $73m amounts to the full amount of coverage available from Remington's four insurers.
- US city rules gun owners must have liability cover
"This victory should serve as a wake up call, not only to the gun industry, but also the insurance and banking companies that prop it up," he added. "For the insurance and banking industries, it's time to recognise the financial cost of underwriting companies that elevate profit by escalating risk."
Last July, Remington - the oldest gun-maker in the US - offered $33 million to (£24m) to the families, falling far short of the $225m they'd sought in court. They rejected the offer and said they had collected enough evidence to prove misconduct from Remington.
Remington, which was founded in 1816 and is based in North Carolina, has denied the allegations and claimed that there was no evidence that its marketing practices were related to the shooting at Sandy Hook.
The company could not be immediately reached for comment on Tuesday.
Despite the deaths of young children aged six and seven, no new national gun control laws were passed in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
738 visitors
Trolling, taunting, and off-topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve the continuity of this seed.
This opens up a whole new venue to sue the gun manufacturers.
remington is already in bankruptcy, good luck to them in finding another insurance carrier. bwah, ha ha ha ha
The $73 million is their total coverage from four different insurers. You're right, good luck on trying to get insurance now.
Oh wow...there's a Remington Arms factory not far from me. It employs quite a few people
Remington is in its second bankruptcy in the last 5 years, the link gives you a good idea on how it's being broken up.
Thanks for the link.
That's the one that's down the road from me
Morning Kavika..
But unfortunately going by past history, it will not be the last..
Unfortunately that it will not be the last school shooting?
Any mass shooting over there..
But when it involves school kids, it is so much worse...
OK, and you're correct it will not be the last.
Anthony Zurcher wrote this article? [deleted]
For a minute I thought it said George W Bush.
How so?
He is mentioned in the article as the one that got the protection for the gun makers in 2005 other than that the article is about the settlement and how it's a major victory (and the first) against a gun maker.
Following the settlement, they may be more of these types of lawsuits.
Sorry but this centrist/liberal gun owner doesn't think that this precedent is a good thing for democracy. This leaves the door open to sue knife, baseball bat, car, rat poison, lead pipe, gasoline/matches manufacturers for all who blame the tool and not the user.
I am a gun owner as well, and no IMO it does not open up those you mentioned above to law suits. The case was based on specific instances of promoting their product to a certain audience.
Finally! At last there is some accountability by the gun proliferators for this unspeakable tragedy.
Yes, there is and the route they took in the lawsuit may lead to many more winning suits.
Snowballs chance in hell unless the Congress completely re-writes the tort statutes or the Supreme Court throws out 600 years of product liability precedents...
This was a negotiated settlement no one won anything...
I am certain that the parents who lost their children don't feel like they've won anything, except, as I stated, some element of accountability.
What a foolish precedent to set. So you got stabbed, sue the knife manufacturer. Got hit with a bat, sue Louisville Slugger. Get hit with a hammer, sue Estwing. Somebody pushed you down the stairs, sue the builder of those stairs. I wonder how much Ford will have to pay the six dead and 60 injured after a red Ford SUV ran them down in Waukesha, Wisconsin.
It was going to cost them more to continue to defend it than pay it off...
That's why they settled... without admitting any liability....
Of course for liberals it is a great victory to be touted... but they actually won nothing...
No precedent was set, no legal decision was made... They were demanding 225 million, they settled for 73?
Probably cause it became plain that was all they were going to get... And yeah it more than likely the insurance carriers forced the settlement... I don't see Remington willingly going down this path... But I definitely see the carriers limiting their liability...
Not in the minds of all the ambulance chasing personal injury attorneys. They make their living from "it's cheaper to settle" Lawsuits.
This would be a better road for the Ambulance chasers
I believe the game manufactures and music culture are to blame for a majority of the gun violence in the US.
The original settlement offer was $33 million a year ago the $73 million the amount of coverage Remington has from the 4 insurance companies. And yes it is a victory as the paragraph below is a part of the settlement.
Yes, It is historic. Though I've been hearing from some credible sources that if this was lawsuit was against a working gun manufacture and not insurance companies they may not have had a chance of winning. It will certainly be interesting when (not if) another case comes down the line.
They are a working gun manufacturer currently the company was split into firearms and ammo and one of the weapons with patent was sold off to another manufacturer.
They are moving their headquarters from NY to GA this year.
It wasn't Remington that settled, it was insurance companies. A legal distinction that must be noted. I'm hoping what I'm hearing out there is wrong, but I don't want people to be surprised if the next case gets tossed by SCOTUS.
That could be interesting since the insurance companies represent the company.
I do not for the love of money know where this misconception comes from, NO manufacturer is immune from product liability suits... Never have been never will be... The issue is to win you have to prove a lot of things... But namely the product was responsible for the tort in the first place... I think that the plaintiffs were no where near close to proving that.... Particularly where it is a product that does no harm to anyone without an outside intervening act... this was a take what you can get settlement, nothing was won..
From CNN..
Looks like you are correct for the most part.
The settlement tells a far different story, but stick to your view and inform Remington and the insurance companies they lost nothing.
No, they are not immune but various state laws the federal law Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) make it extremely difficult to win a case against the gun companies.
Can you list all the successful cases prior to this one that the gun companies lost.
More than $73 million for costs of defense? Not likely.
The insurance companies involved must have thought they had greater potential exposure at trial for them agree to pay that much in settlement.
If $73 million was the full extent of the policy limits, the defendant may well have demanded that the insurance companies pay it if the defendant thought they had potential exposure beyond their policy limits. The insured's demand for payment of their policy limits is not dispositive, but it can be persuasive.
In most instances, the decision of whether to settle, and for how much, is strictly within the purview of the insurance company, not the insured, by contract. To my understanding, only professional liability policies, such as policies covering medical professionals for malpractice, contain a consent provision giving the insured the right to withhold consent. Policies that do contain a consent provision sometimes also have a "cram down" provision which shifts significant liability to the insured if they withhold consent to a recommended settlement.
Potentially ten plus years more of billable hours?, drag the video and entertainment industry into it as well and their insurance companies? (they would have to be enjoined/added to the case as co-defendants for the advertising claim to be made to stick as the cause of liability) Eight years in and they haven't even got to the point of establishing the full extent of the case, the costs to defend could easily top 100 million....
Anything is possible.
Just a note: In the law, "enjoined" refers to a prohibition resulting from an injunction. I believe you meant to use the term "joined".
Settlement agreements always state that the settlement is not an admission of liability.
If, as has been stated here, the defendant was in bankruptcy (I do not know whether they are or not), the rules require that for the bankruptcy stay to be lifted, the plaintiff(s) must agree to limit any recover to the amount of the policy limits.
Absolutely... That is how it works....
I know. In 42 years of practice, negotiating several thousand settlements, every settlement agreement has always specified that there is no admission of liability. And, I have been involved in a number of cases where my client was required to agree to limit their recovery to the defendant's policy limits in order to lift the bankruptcy stay. That's the law.
Wrong decision that will now muck up the manufacturing industry.
So, you wanna make a profit? Not anymore.
Hope they go after the pharma folks next - that'll be a hoot.
Wrong decision that will now muck up the manufacturing industry.
It's a wrong decision in your opinion, which doesn't mean much.
There are millions of companies that make a profit including most gun manufacturers.
News flash, they have and if you have been keeping up the Slacker drug family is paying out billions.
Four drug companies have agreed to a $26 BILLION settlement on the opioid crisis.
In case you're not aware of what is happening in the Native community re big pharma.
US opioid crisis: Native American tribes reach $590m settlement
Believe me - my opinion means as much as anyone else's, which is a GREAT thing about opinions. Hell, where would NT be without all the varied opinions?
Would like to actually be able to read the judge's opinion - as written. There are caveats that will also have affected that/those decisions.
That was my point.
There is one very important part of the settlement, and this is it.
They already are for the opioid crisis which I can't understand. Every Doctor knew what those pills contained and early on they knew abusers were crushing the time release pills to make them kick harder. I don't see any liability as long as they sold the pills through proper channels, they sell to pharmacies. Doctors and Pharmacists are the gatekeepers, Doctors write prescriptions as needed and Pharmacists fill those prescriptions. since the Government is in charge of regulating Opioids and Prescription Meds it seems to me the Government bears more Liability for the crisis than the Manufacturers, the proof is every one of these opioid drugs are still available with prescription for those who need them but the regulations have changed (more forms and a confirmation call). I don't think it's the manufacturer's fault that junkies want to abuse drugs that they bought illegally, you might as well sue the rope manufacturer because someone hung themself.
But wasn't the thrust of the law suit against Remington the way they marketed the weapon? It wasn't the manufacturer's fault here that the weapon was mis-used either. Will be interesting to see how this plays out in the future, but I do think it's a slippery slope.
The liability was in how they got doctors to push the prescriptions. There's evidence of fucking around with the facts of how addictive opioids really were, there's evidence of high pressure sales tactics and sales tactics that look very much like bribery for those that pushed the most pills (free trips, gifts and cash money).
This is very much at the heart of this gun case. They were suing on how guns were marketed to "young at risk males". I'm mostly neutral on the whole subject of the actual case against Remmington itself.
From the article.
I damn well guarantee you Remington didn't pay to have their guns shown/used in any video games or movies. So why the hell didn't they sue the video game manufacturers and Hollywood? Because that would put them squarely against the rich liberal elitists in CA, NY, and elsewhere. I am sure politics had nothing to do with the target of the lawsuit.
Guess Remington will have to start suing Hollywood and video game makers over the use of their weapons. That should be a fun multi million dollar lawsuit that will piss off the left elitists.
That would be their next step, prove that they didn't have Remington's permission to use their product likeness in their product... That would be a burn the house down case...
Not at all, this was a type of case that happens all the time, the plaintiffs weren't looking for a trial, they were looking for a settlement, the only question was how much... They demanded 225 mil Remington initially offered 33 mil as Kav pointed out... The final amount was always going to be somewhere between those two figures... And what happened here is the insurance companies got the plaintiffs to agree to the maximum payout on the insurance policies... If there was a deep pocket here that could go the distance it was the insurance companies...
This really wasn't a win for the plaintiffs.. Yes they got a lot of money, but no where near what they believed they would get... And the attorneys take their 33% off the top and part of these settlements is each side pays it's own fees...
Typically it's how these things work out... They will have to be happy they got something which is better than taking the chance on nothing...
And hell yes it was a historic win, it has opened up a new venue to sue the arms makers.
The original settlement offer was $33 million a year ago the $73 million the amount of coverage Remington has from the 4 insurance companies. And yes it is a victory as the paragraph below is a part of the settlement.
Enlighten yourself on how it works.
Then explain what they won?
They were given 73 million by the insurance companies to drop the suit... That would be the limit of their liability IF THEY LOST IN COURT ....
But they didn't lose in court did they...
So the question is WHAT DID THEY WIN?
Not a goddamned thing...
As far as historic...
1 A List of The Biggest class action settlements
And that is all the gun companies lose in this... no more name placement in video games... big deal...
Actually, it wouldn't be the limit of their liability if they lost in court. It's only the limit that is covered by their insurance companies.
It wasn't a class action suit and the amount of money wasn't the historic part of it as you should know.
The historic part was the win against a gun manufacturer that was laws on the books that make it very difficult to win against them. And Remington tried to use that law to protect themselves, but failed.
What the suit has done is put a dent in the protective shield that they have enjoyed. It also opened up much of their internal records.
It remains to be seen if there will be a flood of other lawsuits tied to the consumer protection act. I'm sure that the settlement resonated with other gun makers and they are scrambling to cover themselves in a case like this and there is a high probability that they are going to be looking closely at the coverage they supply and the probability of another losing case.
In your opinion but resorting to bs like that adds nothing to your losing argument.
Then show me the win, ie show me the judgment against Remington... The verdict, judges or jury's... Either will suffice...
Good luck with that...
It might not be a big deal to you but then you're not the gun manufacturer.
To anyone who actually understands how the law in cases like this works, I haven't lost anything yet... you still have to prove your base claim that the plaintiff's won...
Your no where near that yet and in legal proceedings there is only one way to win that argument... Show me the verdict...
I have pointed it out to you, but you have a difficult time understanding what has transpired is a win and why it was a win. If you, believe it or not, isn't my concern.
I also asked you for a list of judgments against gun makers in this type of suit. Do you have one? It is historic on that bases alone.
Have you ever drug anyone into court? I have, three different corporations, and got what I wanted from them... Negotiated settlements all..
I don't have any problem understanding what your claiming as a win, but your claiming it is a LEGAL win that has precedential value, which it isn't...
Is it a win for the plaintiff's, yes to the extent they received an award, is it what they wanted? no not really, (at least not to the extent they wanted) Is it what the lawyers they hired wanted? absolutely, big payday...
Is it a loss to Remington, nope, they turned it over to the insurance companies... Is it a loss to the insurance companies? nope, they negotiate settlements to avoid trials all the time... That's why manufacturers hire them and buy insurance contracts... Remington's moving the company to Georgia where the State laws are more favorable to them... To file the suit in CT the law requires the plaintiff's to accept the assignment of the insurance companies as defendants which means the most the plaintiff's could recover is the extent of the insurance policies....
No law was adjudicated, no final decision in a court of competent jurisdiction was reached, nothing is appealable... Ergo Sum, there is no precedential value in the case cause there is no longer a case, they came to an agreed upon settlement... The case is dismissed upon agreement of both parties....
It is you that is having a difficult time understanding that there is no legal impact of this case, which is the result Remington wanted all along...
So everyone walks away getting what they wanted to a certain extent, not everything they wanted, but they all got something...
It how 90% of tort cases are usually resolved in this country... Nothing has changed, nothing is historic...
The only people claiming it as historic have no clue how the nuts and bolts, day to day legal system actually works...
Guess what, there is none, you have to have a judgment first to have it be historic...
Like I said show me the judgment by a judge or jury in this case....
There is an agreed upon monetary settlement of all claims, that is not a judgment... That's an agreement....
Sorry but you are in plain fact wrong...
Yes, I've been in court numerous times, generally as an expert witness and in fact in your state a number of times, and three times as a plaintiff in a civil suit and I was the winner in each of those cases.
I never claimed it as a LEGAL win, stop with the BS.
Can you link a case like this that was ''settled out of court''?
Based on your legal expertise you should know the answer to this.
You did claim they "Won" and predicted that there would be many more right here
There's no win here, at all... never was going to be...
They don't publicly catalogue out of court settlements... (although lawyers and actuaries have a journal of such so they can judge what such torts are worth)
So it is historic in your opinion, and that is the extent of your commentary...
ie you can't provide any proof of any "Win" in in this case in any real sense... Got it..
This is my comment that you reference, I don't see where I said a win nor did I ''predict'' that there would be many more. It's clear what I wrote.
No, you really don't ''got it'' at all.
The slippery slope at work. Incrementally chipping away at the 2nd Amendment.
Interesting.
It was kind of a thin case, being based on the advertising - especially considering the shooter didn’t buy the gun. Nevertheless, the settlement makes it go away without further cost, and without setting any new legal precedent regarding liability.
Until the next set of morons sues a gun manufacturer for a killing using their weapon that they had nothing to do with.
The precedent has been set. Sue for enough money; and keep pressure on until the insurance companies get involved and demand a settlement. Repeat as often as needed until the gun manufacturers insurance rates are so high they either can't afford them; or no insurance company will touch them.
They can't be morons if they won the case. The morons would be Remington in this case.
They didn't win a case. They sued and settled. About the only thing they "won" was permission to sue based on the company's advertising.
Having said that, perhaps Remington and other manufacturers learned a lesson about the nature of their advertising, and they might dial back some of the drama in their ads - even though logically, I doubt very much it had any impact on the shooting.
Nevertheless, no matter how strong a complaint or defense you might have, nothing is guaranteed at trial. The settlement allows Remington to control its own fate.
OK, the $73 million and the exposure of all their internal documents wasn't a win.
You can add the moron Alex Jones to that.
Ok just in case some do not understand, ....
LEGAL PRECEDENT can only be set by a judgment of a judge or jury in a court of law...
An agreed upon settlement DOES NOT SET A LEGAL PRECEDENT... No legal decision based upon law has been reached....
AS far as insurance companies, they will handle all such issues with a rider in the policy, excluding coverage for misuse, illegal or criminal use of the product... As far as all the advertising they claim proves the case, until such time as a finder of fact (judge) has ruled on the legal evidentiary value of it, it is NOTHING...
That was the point of the settlement, NOTHING GETS RULED ON, NOTHING IS ESTABLISED AS EVIDENCE...
The case is dismissed and just goes away...
It will be interesting to see how this will go. It brings up a couple thoughts to me
I wonder if the insurance companies settling had anything to do with Remington being bankrupt.
Will this change laws in other states to more closely matches CT in order to exploit this "loophole"?
Will this change how gun manufacturers promote their products so they can skirt around this in particular strategy?
Will there be a change in the laws to better button up this opening if the Republicans take over?
I am sure there are many people that will be making these decisions have already started positioning their next moves. It will be interesting to see.
Good questions RDtC...
No, the insurance companies are obligated to the extent of their policies, more closer to the truth is it represent taking what's in the hand rather than what's in the bush
There's no "loophole", this is how torts are handled every day...
Probably, at least get them to step up and take notice and demand more accountability on those that use their product images in their products...
I'm sure they are going to look at ways to tighten up the laws on product liability especially concerning guns...
A fun fact: Apple never lets any of their products be used by the "bad guys" in film or tv.
Here is a link to an interesting article on the how's and why's of the changing focus of the arms manufacturers and so the $1,000,000 donations to the NRA.
LOCKING THE ARTICLE, WILL RE OPEN TOMORROW.