A little clarity…

In the Sandy Hook parents v. Remington…

Two different articles, two different approaches to the coverage…

Of note, this case never went to court, so effectively there was no actual case presented. It was simply settled for money and rights to release documentation for a company that no longer exists.

According to the Associated Press, the settlement agreement also allows the families to publicly release many of the documents their attorneys obtained during the discovery process, though its unclear whether the company or its insurers admitted any liability in the settlement.

The lawsuit filed against the gun maker claimed that Remington (which has since been sold to new owners) had negligently marketed its modern sporting rifles by “extolling the militaristic qualities of the rifle“, which they argued violated a Connecticut law regulating deceptive marketing practices.

Full article, HERE from Bearing Arms.

And more in depth with the NSSF release included.

The decision to settle in the Soto v. Bushmaster case was not made by a member of the firearms industry.  The settlement was reached between the plaintiffs and the various insurance carriers that held policies with Remington Outdoor Company (ROC), which effectively no longer exists. 

As part of bankruptcy court proceedings, the assets of ROC were sold at auction in September of 2020.  Remington Outdoor Company, which owned the Bushmaster brand, effectively ceased to exist as a going concern.   The lawsuit, however, continued against the estate of the Remington Outdoor Company, essentially ROC’s insurers and their insurance policies in effect at the time.

Full article, HERE at Bearing Arms.



A little clarity… — 21 Comments

  1. From the articles, it SEEMS that there has been a severance of the identity of Remington-past from Remington-present-and-future. So, relocation of Remington headquarters and manufacturing to LaGrange, GA, shouldn’t be affected.
    The basis for the lawsuit dealt with the MARKETING of the Bushmaster, not the rifle itself, and the “marketing violation” was based on a Connecticut law.
    It’s been a little more than nine years since (not named) murdered 20 first-graders and six adults. I don’t know if this settlement will provide some closure for any of the parents or family members, but I hope they find peace somehow.

    • Didn’t the Sandy Hook shooter steal his guns, not buy them?

      • Exactly. If I steal a Mustang, run it into a crowd, is it the fault of Ford?
        I fail to see how this case wasn’t tossed out by the judge the day it was filed.

        • If Ford made a Mustang rifle, then, yes, Ford is at fault, according to our current court system.

          In reality, if anyone was treated like the firearm industry, Ford would be sued for every car thief, drunk driver, failure of a shade-tree mechanic. The dealership who sold the car, the sales rep, the detailer who cleaned the car, the accountant(s) at the dealership, the cleaning service who cleaned the dealership… The gas stations and oil companies would be sued. The tire suppliers and installers would be sued. Same with the radio manufacturer, the carpet manufacturer, basically anyone involved in the manufacture, sale, work, fuel, transport, yada yada of the car involved. Actually, anyone involved in the yada yada of a similar car involved in anything, as injury lawyers and class action asshats will sue just because.

          • Sue schools and teachers for crimes committed by students, and former students.

            Or defense attorneys, and the people who trained the defense attorneys, for crimes committed later by someone that they prevented from being incarcerated until execution.

  2. L.killed his mother in her bed with a .22, then went to, and opened, a vault in which HER arms were stored. He took HER arms, after killing her and unlawfully appropriating her property, and used them in the further commission of additional crimes.

    I habe not been informed of any evidence where he filled out and/or signed a 4473, and I take the position that HE was not the legal owner and possessor of any arms, that they were the property of his mother, who he obviously murdered with malice, to gain control over.

    It’s a pity desecration of a corpse is frowned upon, because I could argue a strong case for it in this instance.

    Remington/Bushamter didn’t place murderous ideation in this mental defective’s head. He was a freak of bad genetics and faulty wiring in utero who should have been left on a windswept cliff in his swaddle after birth, if we lived in a just society.

  3. I response to the last sentence of Pat’s comment up there — no, the settlement won’t bring them peace. It will bring them some money — though the lawyers will get most of it — but money, as various folks from Jesus through the Beatles have said, can’t buy love or peace. That must come from within them, and so long as they are seeking vengeance it cannot come.

  4. So, in other words, the eneMedia is lying out of it’s collective ass yet again. Got it. Thanks.

    Still wrong. Still very wrong, but the clarification makes better sense.

  5. The real question is how did a firearms company go bankrupt with the booming gun market that has existed the past 14 years or so? Just how badly managed was Remington?

  6. Tangent: This post made me wonder if the old Remington Rand conglomerate that used to make UNIVAC computers had any corporate relationship to Remington the firearms company. As far as I could find out, they did not, but during WWII they did produce under contract “more M1911A1 pistols than any other wartime manufacturer.”

  7. All- Good points, and yes, he killed his mother, stole HER rifle, and did his deed.

    Gregg- It was the combination of a failed merger, outdated equipment, the lawsuits, and lousy management

    TOS- You are correct. Eli Remington DID found the companies mfg both guns and typewriters. They sold the typewriter side, which became Remington Rand, while Remington Arms continued as a separate company.

  8. The shysters suing “Remington” colluded with the shysters working for the company insuring Remington to transfer money from one party to another giving BOTH groups of shysters the opportunity to siphon off a HUGE percentage of that cash. This was first and foremost about money….with an opportunity to stick to our 2A rights as a secondary motivation.

  9. So if someone drives over someone then the car manufacturer is liable? What about spoon manufacturers or even a tree if someone chokes on a fruit? Fricking idiocy in action

  10. “violated a Connecticut law regulating deceptive marketing practices.”

    So the plaintiffs claimed that Remington’s claim that the rifles were “militaristic” was deceptive? What exactly did that have do to with the guy murdering people with a stolen rifle? And how does this square with the constant claims that these are weapons of war?

  11. This is my professional life. I am a commercial liability claims adjuster that handles mostly high exposure and litigation claims. I am not involved even remotely in the Sandy Hook case, but I can guarantee that this decision went to the top of each of Remington’s insurance carriers. Sympathetic plaintiffs plus bad venue equals big money every time. The attorneys know it. The insurance people know it. The settlement agreement will specifically deny any liability on the part of Remington (all settlement agreements do). The wording will be something along the lines of “Remington agrees through its insurers to pay $73m in compromise of a doubtful or disputed claim…”. Also, bear in mind that the way the plaintiffs were able to get around the immunity for products liability by arguing deceptive trade practices in the marketing of the firearms. The $73m represents the full amount of all available insurance coverage in force for Remington at the time of the incident. The plaintiffs would have had to seek leave from the bankruptcy to proceed against Remington subject to an agreement that they would only be entitled to recover up to the limits of the available insurance. The fact that all 4 insurers paid their full policy limits indicates that there was a perceived risk of a much higher verdict which the plaintiffs would then seek to recover directly from the insurance companies under a bad faith claim. So, Remington Outdoors didn’t crater. They didn’t likely have any input into the process. The reality is that 4 insurance companies looked at the evidence and the risk, and made a business decision. The 2A never even came into the discussion.

    • Thing is, this is also a situation where the letter signed by heads of law schools on January 12, 2021, regarding January 6, 2021, seriously compromised the interests of legal professionals.

      That letter articulates a theory, which could be described as an allegation that lawyers as profession could successfully collude to defraud the public, and deny representation to clients. The letter is also evidence in favor of that interpretation of the theory.

      Unless and until the behavior of lawyers discredits that theory, laymen may consider whether a particular decision could be a result of such collusion, instead of lawyers representing their clients, and judges deciding impartially on the merits.

      • I tried to find this letter you refer to, but no luck. Post a link if you don’t mind. Having said that, I’m not sure exactly the point you are trying to make. Lawyers colluding with each other to defraud the public? You mean Congress? I’m shocked I tell you. Shocked! Seriously though, Does collusion happen in the legal profession? Yes. It’s a dirty little secret that no one wants to talk about and is, fortunately, relatively rare. Sleazy attorneys are a real thing just like there are sleazy used car salespeople.

        Everyone wants to blame Remington Outdoors or the attorneys or some such. The insurance companies are the ones that made the final decision to settle based on several business factors not the least of which was that the lawsuit was pending in a very liberal venue, and the probability of a verdict in excess of their policy limits was likely very high. The plaintiffs would then make a run at suing the insurance companies directly for bad faith to get even more money. The way it works in the insurance world is that the primary (first layer of coverage) carrier has the duty to defend. They bear the burden of all the legal fees and expenses in a case like this (at a guess based other high profile cases…well in excess of $1m). The primary insurance carrier gets pressured from the excess carriers to settle within their layer. Each layer of excess gets pressured by the one above it. The last layer of excess (another guess but likely Lloyds of London) made the decision that the cost of settlement for the full amount of coverage was more palatable than the risk of proceeding to trial later this year. I guarantee that this case was mock trialed in front of a similar panel of potential jurors by both sides, and the results were likely eye watering.

        • Law Deans Joint Statement on the 2020 Election and Events at the Capital



          They outright say that they, as law faculty, can expect to prevent lawyers from representing certain clients. They also suggest that by representing certain clients, lawyers incur responsibility for actions that others take as a result.

          The whole letter purports to be bipartisan, and yet ignores an obvious example of a case brought without support by facts, and resulting in a public disorder. That being, Marilyn Mosby’s prosecution attempts regarding the death of Freddie Grey.

          Furthermore, some of the facts regarding the 2020 election are details of electrical engineering known to electrical engineers. It is very unlikely that many law school faculty have any knowledge of these facts.

          As a lay man, I do not have personal knowledge of what levels of collusion are possible or practical between lawyers and judges. If the most senior bureaucrats at a majority of US Law Schools asserts that such collusion is possible, why should I be certain that they are incorrect?

          If such collusion is possible in the future, as they assert, is it impossible that such collusion occurred in the past?

          Might not the past sixty or eighty years precedent in criminal or liability law be a result of such improper collusion?

          The answer that best preserves the professional reputation of lawyers is that these Law School Deans are not speaking on behalf of the profession, etc. But, so far, I have not seen the resignations, apologies, and disavowals that I would expect if such were the case.