Remington offers $33 million settlement with Sandy Hook school shooting victims’ families
Gun manufacturer Remington has offered nearly $33 million to nine families of victims killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in a proposed lawsuit settlement, according to court documents filed Tuesday.
Remington Arms Co. LLC and Remington Outdoors Co. Inc. – collectively “Remington” – offered $3.66 million each to nine plaintiffs relating to the shooting that killed 20 children and six adults in Newtown, Connecticut, according to separate offers of compromise.
In a statement, the lawyers for the victims’ families say in part they will “consider their next steps.”
Remington settled, which in the eyes of everyone is admitting fault.
This will open the door to every anti-gun activist to go after the industry.
And you know how the gun community deals with companies that are seen as weak or siding with the antis. It almost destroyed Smith & Wesson in the 90s.
Remington was just getting back on its feet after this latest bankruptcy and this will kill it again, by putting Remington on the gun community boycott list.
Trust me, as someone who knew people at Remington in Huntsville, they employees won’t be happy about this.
This is an upper management decision that will harm Remington, weaken the industry, and give ammunition to the politicians who want to kill the PLCAA.
As somebody smarter and wiser than I pointed out, Remington might not have had a choice, it is their insurance company that forced the settlement.
Now, does somebody have a list of Remington brands? I need to make sure that nothing I need is actually produced by them.
This is why companies in lawyer-bait business categories should not carry liability insurance. And to make it clear, they should change their official company name to something like “The Uninsured xyz Corporation”.
It’s a solution that has been used quite successfully in some other fields; Remington should have adopted it ages ago. But it may be the problem is the management; remember when S&W was bought by some wacky British outfit a decade or two ago and tried to placate the left wing US government anti-gun forces? Didn’t work of course, and eventually they gave up and sold. Is Remington suffering from the same disease, perhaps?
“Now, does somebody have a list of Remington brands? I need to make sure that nothing I need is actually produced by them.”
Pogo was right, we have met the enemy and it is us.
Okay, here’s the ‘Remington Brands’:
Don’t buy Marlin that Ruger bought.
Don’t buy Remington Ammo that Vista Outdoors bought.
Don’t buy Remington Guns that RemArms bought.
Don’t buy Barnes that Sierra bought.
There are a few more that I probably missed but I think I’ve hit the big ones.
Considering that this was the ‘old’ RemingtonOutdoors, that was in receivership after declaring bankruptcy that made the settlement offer, and not any of the companies that bought its assets, yours is the response expected.
I don’t know who is down voting but ok.
Miles, I understand that parts of the company were purchased by others. I’m not sure exactly who or what “Remington Arms” really is right now. That is why the question. I want to know what, if anything, the company that offered a $33 million dollar settlement is actually selling.
So far the answer I’m hearing is “we don’t know” and “it isn’t Marlin, Remington Ammo, Barnes, and Remington Guns. Because those were all purchased by other companies.” I’m not sure what that leaves with the company that settled.
Thank you for that list though. It was helpful.
Thank you for everybody else that is pointing out that what “Remington” is depends on a LOT of things.
” I want to know what, if anything, the company that offered a $33 million dollar settlement is actually selling.”
They aren’t selling anything.
The bankrupt shell company is whats left over after Remington outdoors sold everything: They probably have some cash from sales, a fuck ton of liabilities/creditors, including this lawsuit. The bankruptcy estate settles all the liabilities with the assets from sale (creditors wont be made whole).
This article provides some additional details: https://www.wsj.com/articles/sandy-hook-families-offered-33-million-settlement-by-gun-maker-remington-11627503045
Basically, the settlement is covered by liability insurance [the old] Remington had:
The court filings don’t disclose which of Remington’s insurers are funding the proposed settlement. According to filings in Remington’s bankruptcy case, the company has four insurers that covered it during the 2012 shooting: Ironshore, owned by Liberty Mutual, James River Insurance Co., Chubb Ltd. and Swiss Re.
In his statement, Mr. Koskoff said Ironshore and James River “deserve credit” and criticized Chubb and Swiss Re for continuing to “stand firmly behind dangerous marketing.”
Technically, I doubt [old] Remington bankruptcy lawyers even have much to do with the settlement. Its probably 90% negotiated between the insurers, who have to pay or decide to fight in court, and the Sandy Hook families. And yes, I know, attorneys often settle because of the uncertainty of a lawsuit and the trial WILL be held in Connecticut…
That said, see my comment below. I don’t think this fully excuses Vista et all, since they bought the brand, made a weak sauce non-statement, and many people will be confused by which Remington settled. Vista et al bought the brand, and this settlement clearly harms it.
Did I really get my comment / reply deleted. smh
Afaik it’s only “Remington” now. Most if not all other brands belong to someone else. Marlin to Ruger, Remington Ammunition to CCI and so on.
I may be misremembering something as I have imbibed enough Jack and Coke to poison 3 Asian villages but “Remington” ist just that – the name and it’s overpriced rifles.
And the lesson regarding Danegeld is about to be relearned by a new generation…
The Remington that settled only exists on paper, bankruptcy court had to approve the settlement. However, the new Rem needs to come out and clarify this or there will be consequences…..
pakrat, interesting. That might mean that the bankruptcy court suggested it as a way out of an undefined debt. I.e. the court case still pending.
Regardless, this is going to bring out all the people attempting to use lawfare to drive gun companies and people out of business. Gov. Cuomo already did some things to make it easier to sue gun companies based on advertising and other such nonsense.
“Your honor, this company should be sued out of existence because they said ‘the only thing that stops a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun’ and since my client, a felon, wanted to be a good guy, he acquired a gun by stealing it, and then shot the cop. If only the company hadn’t of said that horrible, misleading, and down right harmful thing, my client wouldn’t have shot the cop. It is the companies fault! Not my poor victimized client”
Even Gun Companies don’t fight in Merca.
They just Settle.
CLUE
I know some people excuse the settlement because “its the bankrupt Remington shell” and not the new company. see here: https://www.pagunblog.com/2021/08/03/remington-settlement/
Not sure I care. I saw the WSJ article that two (of four) insurers are pushing the settlement.
1. Vista, Sierra, Ruger etc. bought the intellectual property (brand). If they were not smart enough to put in the sales contract “Dont do anything to hurt these brands like pissing off our customers who are likely to boycott first and ask later,” or to ensure that the PLCAA was protected, screw Remington brand.
That mistake will come back to haunt everyone in more ways than one.
2. Does the bankruptcy court need to approve the settlement. I would like Vista et al to at least try to object to the settlement. Try dammit. Maybe they dont have standing, maybe the objection gets thrown out. They do have a strong interest in protecting the intellectual property (aka brand) that they bought.
If they don’t make a vehement objection to this now, do they really deserve to be protected by the PLCAA next time?
3. $33 million is a ridiculous settlement. Hard for me to believe the insurers approved this. It feels like a bunch of anti-gun lawyers in the shell company decided to booby trap the whole industry. I keep thinking of those collusive settlements the Obama administration did with environmental groups to get stricter environmental rules without going through the rulemaking process.
Of course, my tinfoil is a bit loose these days, so who knows.
All I know is that I will be avoiding anything Remington until this is sorted out.
Once you have paid him the Danegeld you never get rid of the Dane.
Damn, what a bad move.
What I’ve read is the the insurance companies will be paying.
Still, as already noted, a bad precedent.
Yes. Companies need to consider whether allowing insurance companies to wreck their business is worth the debatable benefits of carrying that insurance. If you’re in the firearms, or aviation, or skydiving business, better to be uninsured. That makes you, pretty much, unsue-able because your pockets are way too shallow to interest the evil sharks.
On the masthead:
Stupendous Company ™
Note: we do not carry liability insurance.
Here is the example I referred to: https://www.pia.com/member/uninsured-united-parachute-technologies-llc/