Remington

[brad502a]

JHSA thank you for the brief much appreciated.
Anti gunners were claiming this a victory and setting a president, but is a out of court settlement a president? I understand that the insurance co. settled because they weighed the trial costs, chances, blah, blah blah...

 

[BlackPowderGuy (AJHS)]

Anti gunners were claiming this a victory and setting a president, but is a out of court settlement a president?

Since it is not a finding of liability, it is not a precedent in the legal sense. Given the way this case played out the most likely consequence is that the insurers of gun manfacturers like Mossberg, SW etc will raise the premiums on their policies...because the insurers now know that their probability that they will have to make a large payout in the event that their client's guns are similarly misused is higher.

This will likely result in a few things:
-Higher prices to consumers for the guns {after all, the money to pay the new premiums have to come from somewhere}
-Some may get out of the AR business because it is the most vulnerable to these kinds of suits {let's be honest, there is not going to be a mass casualty shooting with a muzzleloader, or a bolt action hunting rifle.} - Semi-auto shotguns may be vulnerable...not the Benelli kind where all the ads are about ducks and geese but the Mossberg Defender style, short barrel etc...they could concievably be more vulnerable.
-Some companies may decide that edge marketing is not worth it and just advertise to "solid citizens".

 

[bandicoot]

Insurance companies obviously make WAY too much profit, and litigious societies only grease the wheels.

 

[William Harlaand]

I just saw on the news that Remington has settled with the Sandyhook families for 73 million dollars.
I've always been confused about the whole situation. Adam Lanza, the shooter, killed his mother, who was the person who bought the rifle in the first place.
She had the gun locked up but the kid knew where the key was.
On that fateful day, he took the gun, killed his mother then went to the school and slaughtered all those poor kids.
Must have been some fancy lawyers to twist things around to blame Remington for the actions of that kid. I guess he was pretty much a whack job anyway.
I don't get it?

I did read about it. Remington should not have done that. It's the person that did that not rem.

 

[William Harlaand]

I did read about it. Remington should not have done that. It's the person that did that, not rem. Thank You to all that posted that.

 

[Okie Hog]

Remington had no say in the decision to pay 73 million to Sandy Hook victims. Remington Outdoors Company no longer exists and has not existed since 2020. After the second bankruptcy Remington was dissolved and the insurance company took over liability for the lawsuit.

Remington Outdoors was divvied up thusly:

• Vista Outdoor Inc.: the Lonoke ammunition business and certain IP assets.
• Roundhill Group LLC: the non-Marlin firearms business
• Sierra Bullets LLC: the Barnes ammunition business
• Sturm, Ruger & Co.: the Marlin firearms business
• JJE Capital Holdings LLC: the DPMS, H&R, Stormlake, AAC and Parker brands
• Franklin Armory Holdings Inc.: the Bushmaster brand and some related assets
• Sportsman's Warehouse Inc.: the Tapco brands
• Dakota Arms: Parkwest Arms

 

[birdog]

The insurance company settled I believe to damage the gun industry. There may be no legal precedent with the settlement but I guarantee this will have an affect on the gun industry. This was done with an ulterior motive and it wasn't done to protect gun manufacturing.

 

[Shorty]

I think that judges that make these kind of assumptions are definitely not based on logical common sense. That they did not do their job as they were sworn to do. That they should be let go, fired, by other higher judges for making such a horrific determination. Then another judge takes the case over who has enough wisdom to settle the case without leaving the barn doors open for future ferivelent cases.

 

[ourway77]

I've always said Lawyers and Liberals will ruin this country

 

[ratchettrnr01]

This may screw up the future of firearms manufacturing and maybe manufacturing in general.
Will i be able to sue GMC if i get hit by a driver in a Silverado?

or a ford

 

[ratchettrnr01]

This may screw up the future of firearms manufacturing and maybe manufacturing in general.
Will i be able to sue GMC if i get hit by a driver in a Silverado?

or a ford that's pretty good one

 

[Henry Miles]

Having been sued unjustly myself, things don't work as you might think they do. I had to provide certain documents and personal info during the discovery process and then entered into arbitration to avoid a court case. During arbitration, the lawyers volleyed back and forth until the settlement was agreed upon by both parties. I ended up paying out nearly $70,000 including legal fees to avoid a potentially much costlier court case. Lawyers charge $350 and up for every hour they work on your case, including phone conversations. They keep the meter running! Court cases involve massive amounts of prep time and the associated costs are astronomical. I was sued for $250K and settled for $55K to avoid the headache, time involved and additional legal fees to avoid going to court. As my lawyer, whom I trust, said "you can have a rock solid case and the wrong jury can find you guilty". Remington simply opted for the cheaper solution. Most likely with prejudice, meaning no admission of guilt or further legal action allowed. No precedent has been set. It's simply how the legal system works...or should I say, SUCKS!

 

[MTY]

When this first started, the insurance company most likely did a cost/benefit analysis and decided where their win, lose, draw positions were. To them it was about money. At this cost we have won, at that cost we have lost, and here we can settle with neither side getting exactly what they wanted. For the insurance company the decision points would have included settlement costs, court costs, and internal costs.

 

[gle3105]

Newly warning labels just released due to the Remington case.
Apple , Samsung and other phone companies have added warning labels on their phones:

“Warning ! This device is not to be used to remotely triggering IED’s or other similar explosives. Not for use by jihadist or terrorists.
May void warranty.

 

[birdog]

When this first started, the insurance company most likely did a cost/benefit analysis and decided where their win, lose, draw positions were. To them it was about money. At this cost we have won, at that cost we have lost, and here we can settle with neither side getting exactly what they wanted. For the insurance company the decision points would have included settlement costs, court costs, and internal costs.

This is normally the standard practice for insurance companies. I believe the motivation to settle this case was done with nefarious intent and had less to do with any cost/benefit analysis. Given the fact that some politicians are doing everything they can to allow gun manufactures to be liable for the criminal misuse of their products I believe this is a pretext to accomplish what they so far have been unable to get done on their own.