quote:

Originally posted by EmpireState:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by EmpireState:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
I'm really curious about this thing that keeps getting repeated that SIG "has been negotiating a settlement for months". The lawsuit that is posted here was filed FOUR DAYS AGO, and mentions nothing about a settlement.

In reading the cites, if anyone is interested, it is full of shit on some of the hype. Item 31 states that the Dallas Police Department pulled their guns from circulation on August 16, 2017. Item 29 states that a Tactical Response instructor dropped his SIG in Sacramento, the gun fired and struck a truck in the parking lot. We all know that claim is complete bullshit. Some of the NDs they are quoting came long before the P320 came out. Item 27 talks about a FAM, and they have never issued or allowed the P320.

The lawsuit came out after the whole DPD scandal.

So you're saying that Sig has no idea until 4 days ago that someone claimed to have been shot by a dropped 320? No idea that the gun might have had an issue?

What does that matter to the point I'm making? It keeps getting thrown around here that "SIG has been negotiating the lawsuit for months". That has been repeated a bunch. And it is not truthful. The suit was filed four days ago, and cites a DPD memo that according to them hasn't happened yet.

It has been repeated over and over again. There is no evidence to show that they have, and the filing to show that they haven't.

How do you know? Was Sig completely blindsided by this lawsuit 4 days ago? They had no idea? From this vantage point it kinda looks like they knew something was up way before anyone else and mislead people.

I get it you want to argue like you have been doing with Black. I'm telling you what has been said here repeatedly that the suit was in negotiation, vice what the suit ACTUALLY says.
What you want to do with that information is entirely up to you.

What they knew, when they knew it is completely irrelevant to those that claim that they have been in negation in this suit for months, but yet the suit was filed four days ago.

Anyone heard from Bruce?

quote:

Originally posted by Oat_Action_Man:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Rhino, take a break

THANK YOU.

I should have known that a thread which grew so quickly was likely trouble. My mistake for not catching it.

I do not shoot the P320, so I wasn't following the thread and since no one reported any content in this thread to me, I simply missed it.

Rhino, pard, you are fortunate I was not monitoring this thread. There's a half a million of these pistols out there. Imagine investing 3 or 4000 dollars into a P320 system and then finding out about all this. It's more than the money. It's the time.
Imagine if you have been trusting your life to a P320, and now you're not sure what to think. That's screwed up and unfortunate.

Next time you pop up in this thread, mind your manners. We get it, so just be cool.

quote:

Originally posted by Hans:
Anyone heard from Bruce?

I was texting him earlier.

quote:

Originally posted by Oat_Action_Man:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Rhino, take a break

THANK YOU.

And, did someone seriously say, "I will not have a 320 in my house"?

Indeed: ''...I would not have an un-"upgraded" P320 in my house.''

Guess he's concerned one would up and throw itself on the floor?

quote:

Originally posted by Oat_Action_Man:
Does anyone have a paper bag for you to breathe into?

Even though this is at the top now would it be worth a sticky since there does seem to be a potentially dangerous problem and a voluntary recall?

This thread is in no danger of sinking at the moment.

quote:

Originally posted by RX-79G:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
I'm really curious about this thing that keeps getting repeated that SIG "has been negotiating a settlement for months". The lawsuit that is posted here was filed FOUR DAYS AGO, and mentions nothing about a settlement.

In reading the cites, if anyone is interested, it is full of shit on some of the hype. Item 31 states that the Dallas Police Department pulled their guns from circulation on August 16, 2017. Item 29 states that a Tactical Response instructor dropped his SIG in Sacramento, the gun fired and struck a truck in the parking lot. We all know that claim is complete bullshit. Some of the NDs they are quoting came long before the P320 came out. Item 27 talks about a FAM, and they have never issued or allowed the P320.

The lawsuit came out after the whole DPD scandal.

You don't file court documents to have an "out of court" settlement. You file court documents when you no longer want to settle out of court and want to pursue a lawsuit.

So what documentation do you have that says they were in negotionation? Actual documentation, please. And if this was an out of court settlement, why is it repeated each time it's a lawsuit? The evidence does not support it

There is new information indicating the P320 is discharging on different drops. The more we find out, the more IMO, this make the whole MHS trials suspect.

It's always better to error on the side of caution, before making definitive statements like Sig has recently made along with others and wait to let it work itself out.

This is starting to get worse for Sig by the day and the lessons of SA and the public relations message from the top is just as bad.

quote:

Originally posted by RX-79G:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
I'm really curious about this thing that keeps getting repeated that SIG "has been negotiating a settlement for months". The lawsuit that is posted here was filed FOUR DAYS AGO, and mentions nothing about a settlement.

In reading the cites, if anyone is interested, it is full of shit on some of the hype. Item 31 states that the Dallas Police Department pulled their guns from circulation on August 16, 2017. Item 29 states that a Tactical Response instructor dropped his SIG in Sacramento, the gun fired and struck a truck in the parking lot. We all know that claim is complete bullshit. Some of the NDs they are quoting came long before the P320 came out. Item 27 talks about a FAM, and they have never issued or allowed the P320.

The lawsuit came out after the whole DPD scandal.

You don't file court documents to have an "out of court" settlement. You file court documents when you no longer want to settle out of court and want to pursue a lawsuit.

I can only speak from experience (5 years of handling GL claims for a deep pockets company), but most I have dealt with start with a summons and compliant being filed. I only had one that started as a demand without a formal filing and that went nowhere. Furthermore, you can file suit for just about any reason, the determining of facts comes later, usually MUCH later. And often people file suits based on timing. They wait until just before the statute of limitations expires, in hopes that records aren't kept and employees/witnesses have moved on and aren't available. Or, they time it because public sentiment is right. I don't know any of the details around that suit, and I'm normally skeptical of claims that aren't filed immediately, but my money grab meter is pinging. I see someone jumping on the hopes that the company is in the middle of a "scandal" and will pay heftily just to make it go away. Still, it's possible the guy felt he was at fault for it and it wasn't until this stuff was discovered that he said, "maybe it wasn't my fault."

Anyway, my point is there isn't necessarily (or even usually in my experience) any negotiations before a suit is filed.

ETA: I can expand further. After a suit is filed, it'll be submitted to the insurance carrier, who ultimately has the final decision on what and when to pay, if anything (unless the business is self-insured). Sure, the business usually has some say, as the insurance company knows they can switch carriers if the business is unhappy with them. But I've had carriers pay just to get a full and final release even when I said fight all the way to trial. So out of court settlements definitely happen after lawsuits are filed.

quote:

Originally posted by BuddyChryst:

quote:

Originally posted by RX-79G:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
I'm really curious about this thing that keeps getting repeated that SIG "has been negotiating a settlement for months". The lawsuit that is posted here was filed FOUR DAYS AGO, and mentions nothing about a settlement.

In reading the cites, if anyone is interested, it is full of shit on some of the hype. Item 31 states that the Dallas Police Department pulled their guns from circulation on August 16, 2017. Item 29 states that a Tactical Response instructor dropped his SIG in Sacramento, the gun fired and struck a truck in the parking lot. We all know that claim is complete bullshit. Some of the NDs they are quoting came long before the P320 came out. Item 27 talks about a FAM, and they have never issued or allowed the P320.

The lawsuit came out after the whole DPD scandal.

You don't file court documents to have an "out of court" settlement. You file court documents when you no longer want to settle out of court and want to pursue a lawsuit.

I can only speak from experience (5 years of handling GL claims for a deep pockets company), but most I have dealt with start with a summons and compliant being filed. I only had one that started as a demand without a formal filing and that went nowhere. Furthermore, you can file suit for just about any reason, the determining of facts comes later, usually MUCH later. And often people file suits based on timing. They wait until just before the statute of limitations expires, in hopes that records aren't kept and employees/witnesses have moved on and aren't available. Or, they time it because public sentiment is right. I don't know any of the details around that suit, and I'm normally skeptical of claims that aren't filed immediately, but my money grab meter is pinging. I see someone jumping on the hopes that the company is in the middle of a "scandal" and will pay heftily just to make it go away. Still, it's possible the guy felt he was at fault for it and it wasn't until this stuff was discovered that he said, "maybe it wasn't my fault."

Anyway, my point is there isn't necessarily (or even usually in my experience) any negotiations before a suit is filed.

My experience as well. Companies don't hand out money without being forced to.

I think that we have just got to the point in this thread that it has been repeated as fact so much, that no one actually looked at the suit with any attention to detail, and now that it doesn't match what has been made as fact, it is trying to be explained away. I think that some people are so angry that the actual details no longer matter. For instance, all the glaring inaccuracies in the suit. That the major thing in the suit is quoted to happen eight days from now.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Imagine investing 3 or 4000 dollars into a P320 system and then finding out about all this. It's more than the money. It's the time.
Imagine if you have been trusting your life to a P320, and now you're not sure what to think. That's screwed up and unfortunate.

That's where I am. And I have had countless discussions with people about how great the pistol is. Eating crow like it's going out of style today.
That, and the way Sig has handled the issue thus far.

I've seen the "You will but a glock" thread a thousand times and always thought no way. Well might eat crow again. Maybe I'll just trade for one instead and save face.

So what documentation do you have that says they were in negotionation? Actual documentation, please. And if this was an out of court settlement, why is it repeated each time it's a lawsuit? The evidence does not support it[/QUOTE]

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id...r?mcode=0&curindex=0


CT Law Tribune article says:

Bagnell (attorney for plaintiff) said there were pre-suit discussions regarding a settlement, "but they did not result in a resolution."

Settlement negotiations are not admissible, so we are unlikely to know the details of those negotiations.

Common sense that if the officer was shot on January 15, 2017 and his department discontinued use of the 320 by their entire SRT, that Sig was well aware of the details of this discharge.

I've been watching this story develop, through this thread.
At this point, it looks like Sig is in a bad spot, certainly.

It remains to be seen if this is "Exploding Pinto" bad or "VW emissions cheating" bad. Expensive, either way.
And I will agree that if Sig doesn't fix this for free, they're committing another sin.
Free plus half off your next Sig would be the minimum "Mea Culpa" I would advise plus refunding any monies spent on Apex or GGI triggers, if not compatible with the fixes.

Back to lurking

Bruce

quote:

Originally posted by wolffy88:

I've seen the "You will but a glock" thread a thousand times and always thought no way. Well might eat crow again. Maybe I'll just trade for one instead and save face.

Seeing a lot of P320 for sale on the local board as we speak. Most gently used and only dropped once.

quote:

Originally posted by Blackwater:

quote:

Originally posted by wolffy88:

I've seen the "You will but a glock" thread a thousand times and always thought no way. Well might eat crow again. Maybe I'll just trade for one instead and save face.

Seeing a lot of P320 for sale on the local board as we speak. Most gently used and only dropped once.

I believe that'll get worse too.

quote:

Originally posted by wolffy88:

quote:

Originally posted by Blackwater:

quote:

Originally posted by wolffy88:

I've seen the "You will but a glock" thread a thousand times and always thought no way. Well might eat crow again. Maybe I'll just trade for one instead and save face.

Seeing a lot of P320 for sale on the local board as we speak. Most gently used and only dropped once.

I believe that'll get worse too.

Man I hope so. If so I might own me a P320 soon.

quote:

Originally posted by RX-79G:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by RX-79G:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
I'm really curious about this thing that keeps getting repeated that SIG "has been negotiating a settlement for months". The lawsuit that is posted here was filed FOUR DAYS AGO, and mentions nothing about a settlement.

In reading the cites, if anyone is interested, it is full of shit on some of the hype. Item 31 states that the Dallas Police Department pulled their guns from circulation on August 16, 2017. Item 29 states that a Tactical Response instructor dropped his SIG in Sacramento, the gun fired and struck a truck in the parking lot. We all know that claim is complete bullshit. Some of the NDs they are quoting came long before the P320 came out. Item 27 talks about a FAM, and they have never issued or allowed the P320.

The lawsuit came out after the whole DPD scandal.

You don't file court documents to have an "out of court" settlement. You file court documents when you no longer want to settle out of court and want to pursue a lawsuit.

So what documentation do you have that says they were in negotionation? Actual documentation, please. And if this was an out of court settlement, why is it repeated each time it's a lawsuit? The evidence does not support it

From the last line of the article, as posted by NYresq on page 14 of the thread (I think I may have posted it as well), and has been quoted multiple times since:

quote:

Bagnell said there were pre-suit discussions regarding a settlement, "but they did not result in a resolution.

I don't know what you've been reading, but I haven't referred to out of court settlement negotiations as a "lawsuit". Those are completely different things.

Sure, where is the documentation of the "negotiations"? That is an article written off of information from the attorney that apparently has no trouble bending the truth in reading the complaint. This is an article written from his side of things, and right now, he can claim anything he likes. I am asking for simple documentation, not an article.

If you don't have actual documentation, just simply say "I don't have it, I'm going by what I read the attorney is saying and it is not fact" and we'll move on. I asked for documentation, and not an article written from the side of the attorney.

Well, if there is a problem, and it looks like it has to be, the fix should be easy enough. It may be costly but it's not like a live grenade in your house. A lightweight, or tabbed trigger should do it. So I don't think the entire pistol is a lemon. I bet the MHS pistols get a lightweight trigger even though they have the thumb safety.

Everybody is wondering where Bruce is. I bet he is working furiously for a fix for It. I bet he already has an idea of what he is going to design. Probably in testing now.

quote:

Originally posted by Pale Horse:

quote:

Originally posted by wolffy88:

quote:

Originally posted by Blackwater:

quote:

Originally posted by wolffy88:

I've seen the "You will but a glock" thread a thousand times and always thought no way. Well might eat crow again. Maybe I'll just trade for one instead and save face.

Seeing a lot of P320 for sale on the local board as we speak. Most gently used and only dropped once.

I believe that'll get worse too.

Man I hope so. If so I might own me a P320 soon.

I'm out of space in the safe or I might have another.