Remington Did not Settle Sandy Hook Lawsuit

AmmoLand ^ | February 28, 2022 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Much of old Media are parroting headlines similar to these examples:

• Sandy Hook Families Settle With Gunmaker for $73 Million Over Massacre (New York Times)
• Families of Sandy Hook victims reach $73 million settlement with Remington (NPR)
• Sandy Hook families reach $73 million settlement with gun manufacturer Remington (CNN)
• Families of Sandy Hook victims settle with Remington (BBC)
• Sandy Hook families settle for $73M with gun maker Remington (AP)

The problem with these headlines, as with much of the reporting on the old, dominant media, is they are all false.

Remington, the gunmaker, did not settle with anyone. Remington the gunmaker no longer exists. The people who settled with the families are not gunmakers. They are insurance companies. Remington had no say in the matter. If the case had gone to trial, Remington very likely would have prevailed. The lawsuit was always highly problematic.

From the National Shooting Sports Foundation:

Insurers for the defunct Remington Outdoor Company (ROC) reached a settlement for $73 million with families suing the gun manufacturer under Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUPTA). The insurers reached the settlement since the company no longer exists after falling into bankruptcy. NSSF noted that no manufacturer admitted liability and the plaintiffs never produced evidence that advertising ever influenced Nancy Lanza, who legally purchased the rifle, nor her son who murdered her and committed the heinous crimes. The Connecticut Supreme Court wrote in its Soto v. Bushmaster (4-3) opinion, “[T]he plaintiffs allege that the defendants’ wrongful advertising magnified the lethality of the Sandy Hook massacre by inspiring Lanza or causing him to select a more efficiently deadly weapon for his attack. Proving such a causal link at trial may prove to be a Herculean task.” NSSF believes the Court incorrectly allowed this one claim to go forward

[Paal Gulli]

The whole purpose of this was to undermine the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

"The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S.-based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.

The PLCAA is codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903."

What Does the Sandy Hook Settlement Mean for Future Gun Manufacturer Lawsuits?

"...Widely expected to be an easy win for Remington had it advanced to trial, the case was followed intently by other manufacturers and advocates on both sides of the gun control issue because it could set a precedent for increased future lawsuits...."

"... The deal is a setback to the gun industry because the plaintiffs were able to work around the PLCAA by proving that Remington’s marketing violated Connecticut state consumer law...."

That last statement is a bald-faced LIE because this was an out of court settlement, not the result of a jury verdict. If there was no jury verdict then the only thing proved was the defendant's cowardice and poor stewardship of the US Constitution.

[Recompennation]

Killing the geese that are laying golden eggs.
Anddd toooo stupid to realize it

[Who is John Galt?]

The last paragraph of the article is definitely worth reading...

[Paal Gulli]

Several different Freeprs already noted this, and the dead horse was well and truly beaten, all the way back in February when the story was actual “news.”