Posted on May 31, 2022
Sandy Hook shooting: The unprecedented $73M settlement with gunmaker Remington
1.96K
50
14
6
6
0
Throwback reminder of civil lawsuit after Sandy Hook shooting in 2012 and potential new lawsuit by victims of Buffalo shooting in 2022. The guns in both instances were manufactured and marketed by Remington.
Sandy Hook shooting: The unprecedented $73M settlement with gunmaker Remington
Posted from cbsnews.com
Lawsuit
Firearms and Guns
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
8
8
0
SSG Bill McCoy
Remington did not settle - their insurance company did which is all too common. I used to handle all General and Auto Liability for a major specialty steel corporation. When we had Hartford Insurance, WE determined whether or not they would settle a claim, and were especially firm on NOT settling nuisance claims or claims by so-called ambulance chasers.
When we switched to another insurance company, they IGNORED our directives and would settle EVERY claim. End result? A dramatic increase in nuisance claims - several by the same ambulance chaser.
What was especially galling is that we were "self-insured," and only used an insurance company to administer claims that were funded by a special account we had for whatever insurance carrier we contracted with. They were paid a set fee to handle claims against the company. Sadly, the later insurance company was the proverbial low-bidder and a Sr. VP decided his "Ad-Comp" (Additional Compensation, i.e., bonus) was more beneficial (to him) than the company.
So again, it was NOT Remington who settled, but their insurance company.
When we switched to another insurance company, they IGNORED our directives and would settle EVERY claim. End result? A dramatic increase in nuisance claims - several by the same ambulance chaser.
What was especially galling is that we were "self-insured," and only used an insurance company to administer claims that were funded by a special account we had for whatever insurance carrier we contracted with. They were paid a set fee to handle claims against the company. Sadly, the later insurance company was the proverbial low-bidder and a Sr. VP decided his "Ad-Comp" (Additional Compensation, i.e., bonus) was more beneficial (to him) than the company.
So again, it was NOT Remington who settled, but their insurance company.
(2)
(0)
MSG Thomas Currie
Remington didn't settle.
Remington had already gone bankrupt due to poor business practices unrelated to the lawsuit (which should have been dismissed under federal law except that the plaintiffs were able to do judge-shopping to find a ultra-liberal judge who decided to ignore federal law).
The insurance company who held the business liability policy for the former Remington corporation decided that settling was cheaper than paying their lawyers to fight a case that was going to go on for years against the deep-pockets backers who had recruited the plaintiffs to sue.
Remington had already gone bankrupt due to poor business practices unrelated to the lawsuit (which should have been dismissed under federal law except that the plaintiffs were able to do judge-shopping to find a ultra-liberal judge who decided to ignore federal law).
The insurance company who held the business liability policy for the former Remington corporation decided that settling was cheaper than paying their lawyers to fight a case that was going to go on for years against the deep-pockets backers who had recruited the plaintiffs to sue.
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
4
4
0
That is just sooooo wrong.
To be vilified for making something better and (sometimes) less expensive.
Well, if every Donkey sues you for making a better product. Then you will never be able to make new tech less expensive.
The problem is not with the gun manufacturers or the guns. It is not with the cutlery manufacturers or the knives. It is not with the baseball bat manufacturers or the the bats. It is the individuals who decide to harm others and use weapons to do it. Therefore we should be working to change the minds and attitudes toward others.
Of course, there would be less litigation if we thought and acted to change the morals and standards and beliefs of the perpetrator's.
To be vilified for making something better and (sometimes) less expensive.
Well, if every Donkey sues you for making a better product. Then you will never be able to make new tech less expensive.
The problem is not with the gun manufacturers or the guns. It is not with the cutlery manufacturers or the knives. It is not with the baseball bat manufacturers or the the bats. It is the individuals who decide to harm others and use weapons to do it. Therefore we should be working to change the minds and attitudes toward others.
Of course, there would be less litigation if we thought and acted to change the morals and standards and beliefs of the perpetrator's.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google