Damn good time to be a legal professional !!

Again, this does not create a legal precedence. Nor does it force every insurance company to pay up. We will likely never see the settlement documents.

Both sides felt there was enough risk that a settlement was offered and accepted.

I think it actually scores as a win, and shows the families as what they truly were after, money and not change.

quote:

Originally posted by kho:


Correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that an insured can reject a settlement within the policy limits reached by it's insurer but if it does the insurance company has no further responsibility or liability to the insured for fees costs or any eventual judgment. In other words, the insured is on its own with no coverage for whatever may happen. That is not a risk any insured would be willing to take. Especially in a case like this given the horrific and emotionally charged facts that make it almost impossible to predict the outcome or range of potential liability with any certainty.

It isn't like that is written as an option in the policy. If you refuse to go along with the settlement (because you agreed in advance to give them control), you are in breach of the insurance contract and that breach relieves the insurer of performance of its duties under the contract. So you get no coverage and the insurer doesn't have to defend you any more and you probably have to pay the insurer back for defense costs to date.

That never happens. At least, I have never heard of it happening. You would just go without coverage if you thought that was the way you wanted to handle things. I can't imagine anyone would bail out of coverage.

Yes, it may be shortsighted of the insurer, but think of the risk of trying a case like this in Connecticut. That jury will crucify the defendants.

The possible/probable existence of bankruptcy court control also complicates this greatly. The court is interested in protecting the bankruptcy estate, not advancing firearms' companies' interests more generally.

It is easy to sit back and throw stones at this decision, but it isn't the critics' money.

What utter contemptible shit. The claim was concerning Remington's advertising. Lanza didn't buy the damned gun. His mother did, he killed his mother, and took the gun. Remington's advertising had NOTHING to do with his actions.

Our courts have utterly failed us. They should have dismissed this case out of hand.

I am completely out of compassion for these families. I wish them nothing but misery.

I'm going to stop now before I really say some things I shouldn't.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
So the money isn't all that important, but they will sure as hell still take it. I get it, I am part of that system, and money is the only thing it deals in. But don't claim to be all high and mighty when money is all it is about.

And it probably isn't Remington driving this decision, but an insurer. The insurer has a lot of control when it is funding a settlement, which I am pretty sure is the case here. Insurers don't care about politics, they care about limiting exposure and minimizing payouts. The insurers figure this settlement is cheaper than the risk of trying this to a verdict.

Now, maybe the insurers are being shortsighted too, because they will expose themselves to additional claims in the future by caving in here. But I bet it isn't Remington funding this deal, or making the final decision.

This.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
What utter contemptible shit. The claim was concerning Remington's advertising. Lanza didn't buy the damned gun. His mother did, he killed his mother, and took the gun. Remington's advertising had NOTHING to do with his actions.

Our courts have utterly failed us. They should have dismissed this case out of hand.

I am completely out of compassion for these families. I wish them nothing but misery.

I'm going to stop now before I really say some things I shouldn't.

Congress and the states' leges could give firearms makers some protection and some have. But not all have, and the courts have to apply the law as it exists. You don't want them making up law (like giving firearms' makers protections that aren't in the statutes) do you? When lefty courts do that, we howl, as we should.

Blame the lege - they could fix this with a few paragraphs of law. Texas and Florida and Utah do it, but you know damn well Massachusetts and California won't.

I'm not a lawyer, or even all that smart, but how is a manufacturer responsible for the end user's use of their products? Does Louisville Slugger bear responsibility for when someone is beaten with a bat? How about Benchmade when someone is stabbed? Would putting a warning in the instructions that says the product is not intended for murder remove liability?

Oh, Hell, no!

That's exactly why I am howling.

The case was dismissed by the lower court under The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, and that there was no path to success under Connecticut's Consumer protection act.

The appeal went straight to the Connecticut Supreme Court which decided to let the case go ahead under the consumer protection statute.

"In a first-of-its-kind decision, the state Supreme Court said the families could sue for "wrongful" marketing under a state unfair-trade-practice law. The court, reinstating a suit dismissed by a trial judge in 2016, adopted the families’ novel way around a federal law that protects the gun industry from liability..." https://www.business-humanrigh...ington-can-go-ahead/

Then the US Supremes fail to protect Remington by approving the state court's novel workaround of the LCAA.

There was activism at every level of this case. The lawyer filing it is an activist, the lower court got it right, the state supreme court then goes novel activist, then the Supreme court allows the state case to go forward, and the company settles for exactly the reason you suggest, there would be a trial in CT, where the state supreme court has already spoken on the issue?

Who reasonably thinks that after approving the novel theory advanced by the plaintiffs that they would then entertain an appeal of a lower court ruling in favor of the families.

This is a failure of law at every level. From the decision of the activist lawyer to file the case, to the State supreme court inventing a method to keep the case alive, to the US Supreme court failing to recognize that they were in effect nullifying the LCAA.

Our system is broken. Probably irretrievably broken at this point. The laws are serving the interests of the popular and the loud, not the interests of justice. We pretty clearly no longer have a "rule of law" when it comes to emotional issues. For those cases, we now have a "rule of men" and we will all be poorer, and less free, for it.

Before deciding to write a $33 million check, I'm certain some rather well paid people spent a considerable amount of time weighing the various outcomes.

Just remember, whoever is writing the $33 million check thinks this is a *good* deal.

Look at the bright side - if this had gone to a higher court, and Remington had lost, how exposed would the rest of the firearms industry be moving forward?

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by kho:


Correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that an insured can reject a settlement within the policy limits reached by it's insurer but if it does the insurance company has no further responsibility or liability to the insured for fees costs or any eventual judgment. In other words, the insured is on its own with no coverage for whatever may happen. That is not a risk any insured would be willing to take. Especially in a case like this given the horrific and emotionally charged facts that make it almost impossible to predict the outcome or range of potential liability with any certainty.

It isn't like that is written as an option in the policy. If you refuse to go along with the settlement (because you agreed in advance to give them control), you are in breach of the insurance contract and that breach relieves the insurer of performance of its duties under the contract. So you get no coverage and the insurer doesn't have to defend you any more and you probably have to pay the insurer back for defense costs to date.

That never happens. At least, I have never heard of it happening. You would just go without coverage if you thought that was the way you wanted to handle things. I can't imagine anyone would bail out of coverage.

Yes, it may be shortsighted of the insurer, but think of the risk of trying a case like this in Connecticut. That jury will crucify the defendants.

The possible/probable existence of bankruptcy court control also complicates this greatly. The court is interested in protecting the bankruptcy estate, not advancing firearms' companies' interests more generally.

It is easy to sit back and throw stones at this decision, but it isn't the critics' money.

The bankruptcy actions bracketing this lawsuit most certainly make it more likely a settlement occurs. The insurer wants to write a check to make the suit go away sooner (and at the least amount); same for the bankruptcy administrator/court. And “Remington” isn’t an entity that is beholden to its former customer base or the industry. So even if the insured had any influence over the aspect of when, and how much to offer in settlement; this probably not the case....

So, based on the logic of this case, a car manufacturer could be sued for improper marketing practices if a drunken 16 year old teenager caused an accident with the car that resulted in the deaths of other people? This court decision simply displays an incredible bias against Remington's product if you ask me.

ArtieS, then I agree with you.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
What utter contemptible shit. The claim was concerning Remington's advertising. Lanza didn't buy the damned gun. His mother did, he killed his mother, and took the gun. Remington's advertising had NOTHING to do with his actions.

Exactly ^this^.

A dipstick murderer killed to get the gun, then killed some more. End of story.

quote:

Originally posted by KMitch200:

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
What utter contemptible shit. The claim was concerning Remington's advertising. Lanza didn't buy the damned gun. His mother did, he killed his mother, and took the gun. Remington's advertising had NOTHING to do with his actions.

Exactly ^this^.

A dipstick murderer killed to get the gun, then killed some more. End of story.

The advertisement went through the mom to child through genetics even if neither saw the ad.

Now that the precedent is set, the hyenas are coming for the money

“Families of victims killed in Dayton mass shooting to sue gun magazine manufacturer”


https://abc6onyourside.com/new...nufacturer-7-30-2021

And, in the “you can’t make this stuff up” category, even Mexico is getting in on the act.

“Mexico sues U S gunmakers”

https://www.reuters.com/world/...us-court-2021-08-04/