Sandy Hooks Take $73M from Remington in Settlement

[Laetum]

Pick your own news outlet:

Google Sandy Hook Settlement

I guess they found some ninjas on Remington's Marketing team and held them accountable.

[Thresher]

Bad precedent.

[cz74]

Families cashing in on the tragedy f** disgusting

[Tango_Down]

Cool. Now I can sue car companies for making me late to work. I mean it's their fault right, since they are the vehicle and I'm just the driver.

[The Gleam]

Did your kid choke on PEZ candy?

Sue the company for that, and its semi-automatic high-capacity 12-round dispenser:

PEZ Candy, Inc.
United States & Canada
35 Prindle Hill Road
Orange, CT 06477-3616, USA
Phone: 203-795-0531

------

[MJB]

Who do I sue for my hangover

[Fastattack]

Shame on Remington. What did Remington do wrong? And for that matter, why not the distributor and retailer. Throw in the ammo company and gun safe manufacturer for good measure.

[BobB35]

There is more to this than the settlement. Remington has filed bankruptcy 2x in the last 4 yrs and was sold off in pieces

https://www.pewpewtactical.com/bankrupt-remington-sold-off/

So not sure exactly who is on the hook for this $73 million? Is it the insurance company or whoever bought Bushmaster or whoever picked up the marketing department?

My guess is it is an insurance company who is on the hook and decided to settle and cut thier losses. So in the end the title should read: Insurance company settles with families.

The "company" that made these decisions and sold the rifle no longer exist and it is just a brand name.

[The Tiger]

There is more to this than the settlement. Remington has filed bankruptcy 2x in the last 4 yrs and was sold off in pieces

https://www.pewpewtactical.com/bankrupt-remington-sold-off/

So not sure exactly who is on the hook for this $73 million? Is it the insurance company or whoever bought Bushmaster or whoever picked up the marketing department?

My guess is it is an insurance company who is on the hook and decided to settle and cut thier losses. So in the end the title should read: Insurance company settles with families.

The "company" that made these decisions and sold the rifle no longer exist and it is just a brand name.

That is probably right. But in the end it looks bad and sets people's expectations in a way that I don't like.

[taperxz]

This was about advertising by a company that is bankrupt and no longer makes guns. This was just a way to not have to fight a lawsuit holding up the disolution of a dead entity.

This company was dead financially before Sandy Hook even happened. For all intents and purposes, Remington was going away regardless and was sold to the new Rem Arms

[Joust]

There is more to this than the settlement. Remington has filed bankruptcy 2x in the last 4 yrs and was sold off in pieces

https://www.pewpewtactical.com/bankrupt-remington-sold-off/

So not sure exactly who is on the hook for this $73 million? Is it the insurance company or whoever bought Bushmaster or whoever picked up the marketing department?

My guess is it is an insurance company who is on the hook and decided to settle and cut thier losses. So in the end the title should read: Insurance company settles with families.

The "company" that made these decisions and sold the rifle no longer exist and it is just a brand name.

[pennstater]

Who do I sue for my hangover

Smirnoff.

[sbo80]

To be fair that was a jury-awarded punishment, not a settlement. McD's refused to settle, took it to court, and some shenanigans happened, and the jury didn't like McD's trying to screw over an old lady who required skin grafts from the burns and a $30k medical bill. That's what the lady sued for, but the jury gave her a lot more.
What bothers me about this one, is that it was a settlement, ok fine. Settlements are always done because it appears the cheapest way to end things. But I've seen two MSM reports that explicitly say Remington was "held liable". Even though that's not anything close to the truth. A settlement is the closest thing to a legal bribe (or shakedown, depending on your side), just to make things go away. It doesn't require guilt, or liability, or even any truth. But to say that Remington was responsible is a dangerous precedent for people to think, even if it isn't true. Misinformation indeed.

[FISHNFRANK]

Did Remington settle? Or did their bankruptcy trustee settle on the dissolved company’s behalf? I don’t think any exec that ever worked for Remington is making decisions anymore.

[IVC]

This is very unfortunate, but it was a state law, it was about advertising, it was a settlement and it was with an entity in a very special legal position going through bankruptcy and a takeover.

Don't be too disturbed, though - anti-gun lawyers have been trying, and will continue to try, to get around PLCAA. This doesn't "embolden" or "encourage" any other group to try to sue gun manufacturers, they've been trying to do it all along, PLCAA or not. The process hasn't changed and the paradigm hasn't changed. The courts will still be called to dismiss frivolous lawsuits using PLCAA as the hammer, and the manufacturers will still lose a bit of money going through the initial pleadings in courts, but it's nothing compared to what a full scaled trial in with an anti-gun jury could produce.