Remington pays 73 million to Sandy Hook families

[NYlakesider]

Hmmm. Does this mean we will be seeing an increase in the price of Remington firearms?

Possibly but likely due to this you will see less Remington Company firearms made/sold, till there are none.

Every so called Lawyer will be suing now and not just to Remington. Look for ads, they will be competing with the accident ambulance chaser contingent for air time.

 

[pantannojack]

Kinda demonstrates that their sales prices are too high, if they have money to waste.

 

[Chuck24]

Given the bankruptcy and the split among several entities, who pays.

 

[biku324]

Hmmm, pray tell what does this portend?

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

If the Achilles Heel was the advertising, you may see a lot less advertising about how very deadly some guns and/or ammo are against people, maybe even against zombies.

 

[WTN1271]

News report I saw said the payout was paid from money set aside when Remington was sold off and split up. Someone was figuring that a settlement/ payout was likely and set it up before the actual agreement.

Sent from my SM-G781V using Tapatalk

 

[Telecaster]

I don't recall ever seeing any ads for Bushmaster.

Is it similarly bad for the US Army to run ads?

 

[David.Hylton]

"Given the bankruptcy and the split among several entities, who pays?

According to an earlier article, this has nothing to do with the new Remington. The new owners did not pick up the old liabilities. The article also mentions that the pay out is based on the coverage limits of the four insurers.

I can see all prices rising and increases in insurance related restrictions going forward.

 

[Jon651]

Yep, next is suing Apple and Toyota because some moron blew through a red light while texting.

No need - Tesla's already do that!

 

[smithra_66]

Looking into it a bit, the reason the law suit was effective is that it focussed on Remington's advertising, claiming that it encouraged violent behavior in troubled young men.

While firearms companies are protected by a federal law from liability suits in general, there is an exception for marketing practices which violate state or federal laws. Connecticut has a law against advertising encouraging illegal behavior.

"The families' lawyers have described how the Bushmaster was portrayed as a weapon of war with slogans and product placement in video games that invoked combat violence. The marketing of the rifle also employed hypermasculine themes, including an advertisement with a photograph of the weapon that said, "Consider your man card reissued."

Is Remington's $33 Million Offer Enough to End Sandy Hook Massacre Case? - The New York Times

Only in nutcase land would "man card" be equated to "Go kill a bunch of children."

For Remington to even entertain this in the form of a settlement is idiotic and potentially damaging long term to them and the industry in general.

 

[S&WIowegan]

Forgotten Facts

Folks posting here are forgetting that Remington went bankrupt and auctioned off its' assets. The proceeds from the auction were accumulated in the bankrupt estate. The cash to pay this settlement comes out of that pot and diminishes the amount their creditors can receive in the final resolution of the bankruptcy. These creditors apparently made the decision to settle and try to salvage whatever is left rather than have it all paid to lawyers.

It is almost certain that all purchasers of various Remington assets carefully made sure any judgements or settlements would not bleed over to them. So your rage at 'Remington' is wasted because no gun people made this decision. The worrisome aspect is whether this settlement creates a pathway to sue all gun related businesses because of their adverts.

 

[Squarebutt]

This case never should have gone forward, but it was such a big and emotional story in the area, that a Superior Court judge didn't dare throw it out of court. It looks like the bankruptcy deal pushed the settlement offer, and the insurance companies figured that a jury trial might bring an award in the billions. Sad case all around. There's a federal law that prevents people from suing gun companies, but apparently CT law allows them to sue over advertising. Stuff like this is why New England gun manufacturers are migrating to friendlier states.

 

[glenwolde]

This case never should have gone forward, but it was such a big and emotional story in the area, that a Superior Court judge didn't dare throw it out of court. It looks like the bankruptcy deal pushed the settlement offer, and the insurance companies figured that a jury trial might bring an award in the billions. Sad case all around. There's a federal law that prevents people from suing gun companies, but apparently CT law allows them to sue over advertising. Stuff like this is why New England gun manufacturers are migrating to friendlier states.

I agree, this had a whole lot to do with trying to wrap up the bankruptcy. Just moving forward with liquidation would have left all sorts of potential claims out in the cold, and the Judge was reluctant to do that.

 

[Beemer-mark]

Since the Remington being named in the article no longer exists. I'm going out on a limb here and thinking the bankruptcy lawyers representing the former proceeds of the defunct company made the settlement. Chilling moment though, look through any gun magazine and inspect the ads. Better make all those concealed carry pistol advertisements about hunting and nothing else.

 

[Rudi]

Very bad precedent. The "media" never mention that he murdered his own mother to STEAL the rifle.

 

[KyJim]

I've seen a couple of references to insurance companies paying the $73 million. For example:

"The $73m amounts to the full amount of coverage available from Remington's four insurers." Families of Sandy Hook victims settle with Remington - BBC News.

So, nobody had any skin in the game except the insurance companies. That would help explain why the suit settled.

 

[luvsmiths]

"Given the bankruptcy and the split among several entities, who pays?

According to an earlier article, this has nothing to do with the new Remington. The new owners did not pick up the old liabilities. The article also mentions that the pay out is based on the coverage limits of the four insurers.

I can see all prices rising and increases in insurance related restrictions going forward.

Four different insurance companies are paying out. See how much Remington cares? Guess who pays in the end, in the form of higher premiums? Oh boy, can't win.

 

[LVSteve]

Yep, next is suing Apple and Toyota because some moron blew through a red light while texting.

After the near wreck I saw this afternoon, it cannot come too soon.

 

[LVSteve]

Very bad precedent. ....

...in CT, and only in CT. The courts in many other states will not take this as a precedent for them.

IMHO the biggest villains in this are SCOTUS for refusing to consider Remington's petition for dismissal. I assume Remington's case was based on preemption by Federal law.

 

[Johnny Diamond]

Just plain bad news.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

[John_M52]

I assume Remington is planning for another bankruptcy