Remington getting sued WTF?
- Thread starter louu
- Start date
It looks to me like R opened the ball for manufactures to get sued out of existence.
Im looking for more information now and I'm finding stuff saying they sued the insurance company not Remington. I'm also finding stuff saying that Remington told the insurance company to settle this out of court. I'm not sure if any of it is true though
I wonder why alcohol companies do not get sued in a death involving alcohol, knife companies in a death involving a knife, auto manufacturers sued if someone runs over a jaywalker, Levis sued if the killer was wearing jeans...
Since it is a settlement, it does not become case law. Its just an agreement between two parties. Could have been a lot worse.
Remington is bankrupt and unable to defend.
Remington is bankrupt and unable to defend.
Can I sue Trojan cause I gotza Herpes ? Asking fer a fren .
Insurance companies paid out which means Remington had policies for this exactly 73 million in coverage since they maxed out the pay out. I would imagine every other company premiums will go up as well as the price of guns. They found documents that Remington sold and promoted the weapon as military for civilian use originally.
Sandy Hook Settlement
Wow https://on.mktw.net/351gxPe Check out this article from MarketWatch - Sandy Hook families settle with gun maker Remington for $73 million
www.snipershide.com
Thanks I searched Remington and didn't find that one.Sandy Hook Settlement
Wow https://on.mktw.net/351gxPe Check out this article from MarketWatch - Sandy Hook families settle with gun maker Remington for $73 million
Can the mods delete this one and maybe add Remington to that title?
I'm just happy all those people could finally put a price on their kids lives. The initial 33 million offered wasn't enough.
If I recall correctly, the CT state Supreme Court said they didn't care if there was a federal law that protected firearms manufacturers, this was a state action and they were going to let it proceed ( or words to that effect ).
McDonalds next for high cholesterol and heart disease....right???
Budweiser for drunk driving deaths????
Budweiser for drunk driving deaths????
Not being case law doesnt in any way mean that it hasnt set a precedent moving forward.
Legal Precedent. Since we rely on that for our legal system, its a very important distinction. While settleman may encourage others to try, it has set no legal case basis for gun mfg. Very Very important.
Im aware of what case law is in relation to "legal precedent". Thats not what I was referring to either.
The anti-gun group or general public doesnt care, most people who watch tv by now know that plenty of cases are "settled", to refuse admitting liability and save face, while still paying the "victim".
They see it as "gun company that makes guns got sued, then they paid". You dont think that will encourage others to keep going at it until it has an actual chance of becoming something bigger?
That will depend upon the state court allowing it to proceed or not. Not every state is Connecticut. This case has quite a few very particular unique issues that do not lend itself readily to any other future case involving suing the manufacturers of weapons.
Why $73 million Sandy Hook settlement is unlikely to unleash a flood of lawsuits against gun-makers
While it’s a victory for the families of the victims, the settlement leaves a key legal question about the gun industry’s liability shield unanswered.
theconversation.com
They do and they did. This is why you always see a beer commercial with disclaimers about drinking responsibly and why car commercials highlight professional driver and a closed course. Remington didn’t get sued because their product was used to kill someone.
They got sued because they ran an ad campaign mostly online that showed everyday people acting like mercenaries utilizing the firearms as weapons against people and it fell out of step with advertising guidelines es in the state.
Normally this would be a suit to stop the campaign but considering the nature of the even and the fact that the company no longer exists, the insurance company paid and moved on
Sure and this is why every fool who falls in Walmart thinks Walmart is going to pay them. Well they eventually find out 1. Under most occurancrs walmart isnt liable and 2. Your not entitled to much even if they are.
And you would have a case if they 1. Ran an ad campaign saying using our spoons will keep you from getting fat, or if they 2. Showed lots of fat people losing tons of weight after switching to their spoons
73 million is nothing. I’ve worked in insurance for 20 years.
I personally handled Michigan PIP claims of $10+ million. State Farm for example brings in 125+ billion a year. This is no big deal
Do I get to make complaints to you about triple a then? Just sent one in to DIFS about my "claim handler" trying to tell doctors their interpretation of lifetime medical.
What you see is an insurance company making a precedent for pricing future policies.
There's a thread, started a couple days ago, about people getting notifications that their policies for their gun collection getting doubled. What do you think is going to happen to the gun dealers, manufacturers and other gun occupations?
It's a giant excuse to raise rates. Possibly to put those industries/occupations out of business.
Next time your shooting range has to renew it's policy? Local gun store?
There's a thread, started a couple days ago, about people getting notifications that their policies for their gun collection getting doubled. What do you think is going to happen to the gun dealers, manufacturers and other gun occupations?
It's a giant excuse to raise rates. Possibly to put those industries/occupations out of business.
Next time your shooting range has to renew it's policy? Local gun store?
Walmart is a retailer, not a manufacturer. Different set of liabilities to begin with. They're also not operating in an industry that has people irrationally afraid, and whole groups dedicated to taking them down, like Mothers Demand Action.
We're definitely comparing apples to oranges, and you may want to change your example to some other company, since walmart has lawyers specifically targeting them for personal injury lawsuits (and they have paid quite a bit by now).
https://www.tapinjury.com/news/10-million-awarded-in-walmart-premises-liability-lawsuit/ just a random one I found. plenty more out there. dont gotta look hard.
Ha sure, present claims against AAA all the time. Medical is always disputed. For every good doctor that says absolutely there are just as many who say no way.
We usually have a few claims a year for slip and falls and insurance companies write checks rather then even fighting them. The claimants have a long history of slip and falls which we see the records of but to the insurance its cheaper to give out a few hundred grand to avoid court.
Interesting. I’ve read in our state that it’s very unlikely to get a slip and fall payout here because seasonal things like snow and ice have been ruled as “well known dangers to the common man” or something along those lines.
yea none of that made sense to me they agreed to pay stupid is as stupid does even if there firearm was used in the shooting the criminal is at fault not the gun maker unless they hired him to commit the crime which I highly doubt .
I'm talking slip and falls during the summer on a sidewalk during a construction project, one guy was on video so you watch him walk up to the sidewalk and sit down to act out a fall.
We use to plow snow at commercial sites and always had slip and fall cases, one of the reasons we stopped doing it.
"Remington" is not on the hook for this. They went bankrupt. It was their insurers (5) that agreed to settle out of court. As others have pointed out, look for this to be a pivotal moment in the gun industry. A drop in the bucket for insurers, but look at what the future consequences will be. I just see the insurance companies saying no to coverage or raising premiums to ridiculous levels for all gun related industries.
Yup..there's people here acting like this settlement happened in a vacuum, and there wont be any future consequences of it..monetary or legal, this will be felt.
Ahhh...I did not know it was the advertising that caught them. In that light the case makes sense.
Similar threads
