Sandy Hook settlement

[smartcooky]

Yes and as you finally admitted, the law doesn't mention carriers.

That is a lie. How can I admit to something I never claimed in the first place?

Only in your fevered imagination does something have to have a law about it before somebody can be sued.

Sure, anyone can be sue for anything, but you are going to be pushing feces uphill with a pointed stick if the person you are suing and has not committed a tort of some kind. I guess we can now add "Tort Law" to the ever-growing list of things you don't know anything about... and no, I'm not going to explain it to you or link to to an explanation. You wouldn't read it, and in any case, I'm done doing your homework for you.

As usual you are projecting again. I remind you that YOU are the one who has been claiming that the carrier has NO liability.

Another lie. YOU claimed the carrier has liability, and you have failed to provide any evidence to support that claim.

On the other hand, I have supported my claim, that the carrier has no liability, with evidence.

I have linked to the law, you refuse to read it!
I have linked to a legal explanation (from a Law firm that deals in litigation, litigation) of the difference between "no liability" and "immunity from liability". You refuse to read it

You cannot just refuse to read the evidence you have been given and then claim you haven't been shown the evidence.

your claim, your burden.

Yep, and the burden has been met, repeatedly, and emphatically!

 

[psionl0]

That is a lie. How can I admit to something I never claimed in the first place?

So now you are not claiming that the law doesn't mention carriers? Great! [/QUOTE]

I guess we can now add "Tort Law" to the ever-growing list of things you I don't know anything about.

FTFY

Another lie.

The lie is all yours. YOU are the one who has claimed that the carrier has NO liability and attempted to "prove" it by quoting a law that doesn't mention carriers. Somehow, in your mind, an absence of any words equates to words that say "carriers are not liable".

You have no legal expertise whatsoever and I don't believe a word you say.

 

[smartcooky]

So now you are not claiming that the law doesn't mention carriers? Great!

No, I am stating a fact that the law does not mention carriers. That is what I always claimed, right from the start. When the law is silent on applicability, there is no applicability. That is a fact, ask any lawyer.

FTFY

Nope, you fixed nothing... another fail

The lie is all yours. YOU are the one who has claimed that the carrier has NO liability and attempted to "prove" it by quoting a law that doesn't mention carriers.

I wasn't attempting, I was doing

Somehow, in your mind, an absence of any words equates to words that say "carriers are not liable".

FTFY

You have no legal expertise whatsoever and I don't believe a word you say.

I clearly have more legal expertise than you - and I don't give a fat rats arse whether you believe me or not.

 

[Darat]

smartcooky & psionl0 - please knock off the personalisation of your discussion. If it continues in this vein it is likely to have the entire exchange moved to AAH.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I haven't examined the case closely, but I wonder if they address the fact that the person who did the shooting is not the person who bought the rifle.

The person who was arguably the one influenced by marketing was the mother who bought the rifle, who was the first victim when our spree killer murdered her using a .22 rifle and took the more potent rifle from the safe.


I'm guessing the CT unfair practices laws don't require that a plaintiff prove that any particular piece of advertising actually influenced anyone's behavior, because doing so would be impossible in most cases.

 

[casebro]

I haven't examined the case closely, but I wonder if they address the fact that the person who did the shooting is not the person who bought the rifle.

The person who was arguably the one influenced by marketing was the mother who bought the rifle, who was the first victim when our spree killer murdered her using a .22 rifle and took the more potent rifle from the safe.


I'm guessing the CT unfair practices laws don't require that a plaintiff prove that any particular piece of advertising actually influenced anyone's behavior, because doing so would be impossible in most cases.

And there lies the crux of a defense.

 

[Darat]

And there lies the crux of a defense.

But one the insurers weren't going to use.

 

[casebro]

You might have to get a copy of the 2011/12 version of "Call of Duty" I guess

Newtown mass shooter Adam Lanza epitomized the buyers wooed by the ad campaign mounted for the Bushmaster AR-15, a lawyer insisted Tuesday before Connecticut's highest court.

Weapons manufacturer Remington Arms "had been courting (Lanza) for years," attorney Josh Koskoff, who represents some of the school massacre victims' families, charged inside a jam-packed Hartford hearing.

"It wasn't just that they marketed the weapon looking for people with the characteristics of Adam Lanza. It's that Adam Lanza heard the message, and was driven specifically to the Bushmaster for his weapon for this combat mission."

Koskoff noted the assault rifle was touted as the must-have weapon for any firefight, boasting that opponents were "single-handedly outnumbered" by an owner toting an AR-15.
"Forces of opposition, bow down" was another marketing tag line for the particularly lethal weapon, as was "consider your man card reissued."
Speaking outside court, Koskoff said the marketing scheme created by Remington indicated the lack of a moral compass within the company — and its management should be held responsible.

"What kind of society do we live in if the manufacturer has no skin in the game?" asked Koskoff. "What we have here is the conduct of a company that thought it was above the law."
​

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/na...-blame-sandy-hook-ar-15-ads-article-1.3632565

I'm not seeing the marketing for aggressive purposes by civilians. If this is such, than any mention of any fire arm anywhere is "marketing to Lanza". Bye-bye John Wayne movies, Ahnold, Bruce Willis....

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'm not seeing the marketing for aggressive purposes by civilians. If this is such, than any mention of any fire arm anywhere is "marketing to Lanza". Bye-bye John Wayne movies, Ahnold, Bruce Willis....

I don't think any gun manufacturer would be responsible for how an action movie portrayed their product without their permission. Now, if they paid to place their products in the film, that might be a different story.

I would imagine this high dollar settlement is certainly sending warning alarms off for many gun manufacturers. I've seen more than a few ads that are more objectionable than the macho crap put out from Remington.

The unfortunate facet of this ending in settlement is that there's no ruling to read that breaks down the merits of the case in detail. We're left with overstated arguments from both the defense and plaintiff without much indication, besides the fact that Remington was pessimistic enough to settle high rather than risk losing, as to where the law would actually land.

When you see ads like this, it's pretty easy to see how some gun advertisers are really putting themselves in a lot of jeopardy. It's hard to read this as anything but an open pander to the idea that CHUDs should use their products to shoot protest crowds:

https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2018/01/10/a-florida-gun-company-is-defending-its-decision-to-run-this-insane-advertisement

 

[smartcooky]

And there lies the crux of a defense.

And yet, neither the lawyers for Remington, nor those for their four insurers, chose to use it. Not much of a crux then!

I'm not seeing the marketing for aggressive purposes by civilians.

I am. They're clear, obvious and in plain sight.

If this is such, then any mention of any fire arm anywhere is "marketing to Lanza". Bye-bye John Wayne movies, Ahnold, Bruce Willis....

Did Colt, Remington, Winchester et al pay the producers of those movies to use their weapons? Did they pay them to promote their weapons in the advertising materials for those movies?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The decision by the CT supreme court to let this go forward was 4-3. This case settlement is certainly an unusual outcome, and I would imagine other litigators are looking at this as a potential pattern to use in the future when some other mass shooter uses a rifle with an unsavory marketing strategy, but it remains to be seen if this is something that will succeed in other states.

Remington's marketing isn't even close to being the more extreme stuff out there.

The AR-15 has been off patent since before the 1980's, and huge numbers of manufacturers are producing the exact same pattern of product that are, in most cases, 100% interchangeable across brands. The AR-15 is practically a commodity product. There are a huge number of brands who are essentially competing for the same mid-shelf market, so branding and marketing play a big role in drawing customers away from their otherwise identical competitors. Since gun culture in this country is an absolutely toxic, macho mess, much of that marketing appeals to unsavory ideas.

There's huge liability here if this kind of case continues to be successful. Remington's ads were tame compared to some of the repugnant crap that's out there. I suppose we just to wait and see, it's not like there's going to be any shortage of massacre type shootings in this country in the near future. Just waiting for the right shooter to choose the right branded rifle in the right state, and another one of these companies could be facing a huge lawsuit.

 

[smartcooky]

The decision by the CT supreme court to let this go forward was 4-3. This case settlement is certainly an unusual outcome, and I would imagine other litigators are looking at this as a potential pattern to use in the future when some other mass shooter uses a rifle with an unsavory marketing strategy, but it remains to be seen if this is something that will succeed in other states.

Remington's marketing isn't even close to being the more extreme stuff out there.

The AR-15 has been off patent since before the 1980's, and huge numbers of manufacturers are producing the exact same pattern of product that are, in most cases, 100% interchangeable across brands. The AR-15 is practically a commodity product. There are a huge number of brands who are essentially competing for the same mid-shelf market, so branding and marketing play a big role in drawing customers away from their otherwise identical competitors. Since gun culture in this country is an absolutely toxic, macho mess, much of that marketing appeals to unsavory ideas.

There's huge liability here if this kind of case continues to be successful. Remington's ads were tame compared to some of the repugnant crap that's out there. I suppose we just to wait and see, it's not like there's going to be any shortage of massacre type shootings in this country in the near future. Just waiting for the right shooter to choose the right branded rifle in the right state, and another one of these companies could be facing a huge lawsuit.

Yeah, this was in its effect a loophole... the PLCAA (15 USC § 7901 et seq) is supposed to protect forearms manufacturers from liability for the way that their products are used by the end user, but it does not protect them from false, misleading or unethical promotion, marketing or advertising. This is the ruling the trial judge made (affirmed by the Connecticut Supreme Court) when the defendants tried to claim PLCAA protection for Remington...

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment that most of Plaintiffs’ claims were precluded by established Connecticut law and/or PLCAA. However, as to Plaintiffs’ claims that Defendants knowingly marketed, advertised, and promoted the XM15-E2S for civilians to use to carry out offensive, military style combat missions, the Supreme Court held that Plaintiffs pleaded allegations sufficient to survive a motion to strike because (1) PLCAA does not bar Plaintiffs’ wrongful marketing claims; and (2) to the extent that it prohibits the unethical advertising of dangerous products for illegal purposes, CUTPA qualifies as a predicate statute. ​

Right now, NRA lawyers will be scouring 49 other State laws to see if any of them have the same loophole the plaintiffs found in the Connecticut law, and they will be lobbying their State Legislatures to close that loophole.

The NRA will also be lobbying Congress to close the loophole in the PLCAA to give them protection for their marketing. Next time there is a Republican dominated Congress, they will do their donors' bidding.

 

[casebro]

Yeah, this was in its effect a loophole... the PLCAA (15 USC § 7901 et seq) is supposed to protect forearms manufacturers from liability for the way that their products are used by the end user, but it does not protect them from false, misleading or unethical promotion, marketing or advertising. This is the ruling the trial judge made (affirmed by the Connecticut Supreme Court) when the defendants tried to claim PLCAA protection for Remington...

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment that most of Plaintiffs’ claims were precluded by established Connecticut law and/or PLCAA. However, as to Plaintiffs’ claims that Defendants knowingly marketed, advertised, and promoted the XM15-E2S for civilians to use to carry out offensive, military style combat missions, the Supreme Court held that Plaintiffs pleaded allegations sufficient to survive a motion to strike because (1) PLCAA does not bar Plaintiffs’ wrongful marketing claims; and (2) to the extent that it prohibits the unethical advertising of dangerous products for illegal purposes, CUTPA qualifies as a predicate statute. ​

Right now, NRA lawyers will be scouring 49 other State laws to see if any of them have the same loophole the plaintiffs found in the Connecticut law, and they will be lobbying their State Legislatures to close that loophole.

The NRA will also be lobbying Congress to close the loophole in the PLCAA to give them protection for their marketing. Next time there is a Republican dominated Congress, they will do their donors' bidding.

CT. Supreme Court is NOT SCOTUS. Federal PLCCA vs CT.'s advertising rule? Hmmm, Remington is no longer a defendant, the bankruptcy evaporated their liability. Next suit might actualy be taken to SCOTUS. \

I wonder how much the 'premiums' were? It was part of the bankruptcy. The insurors may still be making a profit, even with the quick settlement. Perhaps they had no reason to fight it in court, they are already $$$ ahead? So no 'earth shaking' changes to liability?

And also, the insurers do not want to have to stop insuring, which would happen of this debacle becomes 'law of the land'. Things are a little deeper than 'Mr. Smith settled with Mrs. Jones'.

 

[smartcooky]

CT. Supreme Court is NOT SCOTUS.

I never said it was. I was quoting from a document which was about the case in State Court, and I made it clear that they were talking about the State Supreme court of Connecticut.

Federal PLCCA vs CT.'s advertising rule?

Nope that is not what it means. Its not Federal Law v State Law. Its a case where both laws are in agreement (or more correclty, do not conflict) because there is a predicate law or statute.

At least make some effort to understand what you are talking about.

Remington is no longer a defendant, the bankruptcy evaporated their liability.

Only if the bankruptcy qualifies for discharge. In this case it doesn't, because

a. The judge hearing the Chapter 11 bankruptcy application ruled that any judgement or settlement of the lawsuit would not be discharged, and

b. Remington had public (general) liability insurance, so the insurer became liable.

Next suit might actualy be taken to SCOTUS.

Perhaps, but my gut feeling here is that SCOTUS would not touch any of this with a 50ft bargepole.

I wonder how much the 'premiums' were? It was part of the bankruptcy. The insurers may still be making a profit, even with the quick settlement. Perhaps they had no reason to fight it in court, they are already $$$ ahead? So no 'earth shaking' changes to liability?

I think you're straying into Fantasyland here. The premiums for general liability are usually not all that much, certainly nowhere near the amount settled. While I can't speak for what its like in the US, my small business had a NZ$2m public liability clause, it cost me about $NZ40 per month. A larger business such as a construction company might pay twice or three times that but not much more.

And also, the insurers do not want to have to stop insuring... which would happen....

Nope, that's never going to happen. Insurance covers the whole spectrum of business from the very big to the very small - insuring firearms manufacturers against general liability would be a miniscule part of their premium receipts general liability insurance across the whole range of business in the USA, let alone the whole range of other insurance services.

... if this debacle becomes 'law of the land'.

Why is it a "debacle" that a company should be held responsible for the damage it does to society with its dangerous, unethical practices?

Things are a little deeper than 'Mr. Smith settled with Mrs. Jones'.

No, they aren't.

 

[casebro]

I never said it was. ...

Keep in mind that we areon a public forum- Just because I 'quote' you doesn't mean I am talking ONLY to YOU. I'm sharing ideas with the readers.

Nope that is not what it means. Its not Federal Law v State Law. Its a case where both laws are in agreement (or more correclty, do not conflict) because there is a predicate law or statute.

According to CT. Supremes, NOT YET according to SCOTUS.

Only if the bankruptcy qualifies for discharge. In this case it doesn't, because

a. The judge hearing the Chapter 11 bankruptcy application ruled that any judgement or settlement of the lawsuit would not be discharged,....

Yes.

I think you're straying into Fantasyland here. The premiums for general liability are usually not all that much, certainly nowhere near the amount settled. While I can't speak for what its like in the US, my small business had a NZ$2m public liability clause, it cost me about $NZ40 per month. A larger business such as a construction company might pay twice or three times that but not much more.

My Million dollar policy in USA cost me $1,000/year.

Nope, that's never going to happen. Insurance covers the whole spectrum of business from the very big to the very small - insuring firearms manufacturers against general liability would be a miniscule part of their premium receipts general liability insurance across the whole range of business in the USA, let alone the whole range of other insurance services.

I was talking about gun maker liability, not ALL business policies. Here in America insurors use different rates for different industries. Some industries are un-insurable. Gun clubs frinstance- the NRA is the only insuror that will cover them.

Do you remember the fire in a Las Vegas hotel? The hotel bought a policy ex post facto. The insurors planned to make a profit. They knew they were going to make BIG pay outs, hoping for structured settlements over decades. I wonder how much the premiums are on an ex post facto policy? Did Remington do the same, what with the assets they still had at the chapter 11?

No, they aren't.

Yes they are. Mr. Smith/Mrs. Jones are a lot simpler than a corporation, an insurance conglomeration, and a very narrow court ruling.

 

[smartcooky]

Keep in mind that we areon a public forum- Just because I 'quote' you doesn't mean I am talking ONLY to YOU. I'm sharing ideas with the readers.

Fair enough

According to CT. Supremes, NOT YET according to SCOTUS.

The law doesn't work that way.

When a state Supreme Court makes a ruling, that becomes the a priori law for that state. It can only be overturned by SCOTUS, but SCOTUS hears only a tiny minority of cases.

More than 100 million court cases are filed each year in State trial courts of which about 40 million are lawsuits, while roughly 400,000 cases are filed in Federal trial courts. Of all these, only about 7,000 are are referred to SCOTUS, and of those only about 100 to 150 cases are accepted.

My Million dollar policy in USA cost me $1,000/year.

Well that is very high, but it is still nowhere near high enough for an insurance company to warrant settling for $73m on the basis of premium losses on Firearms manufacturers alone.

About half of all business pay US$300-600 annually. Your business is among the 1 in 5 that pay more than US$900 annually

https://www.insureon.com/small-business-insurance/general-liability/cost

However, check this out...

https://www.products-liability-insurance.com/firearm-and-gun-products/

Firearms manufacturers insurance cover runs from about $2500 to $10,000 pa...

There are only about 70 major firearms manufacturers in the USA and there are about 6,000 insurance companies, most of which have general liability policies.

70 major firearms manufacturers paying the maximum average premiums of $10.000. That's $700,000... still nowhere near enough to justify a cut and run with a $73m settlement.

I was talking about gun maker liability, not ALL business policies. Here in America insurors use different rates for different industries. Some industries are un-insurable. Gun clubs frinstance- the NRA is the only insuror that will cover them.

See the link I posted just above

Yes, I am aware of that, but really, even if the four insurers decided to never again insure major firearms manufacturers, what would it really cost them in terms of lost premiums?

Do you remember the fire in a Las Vegas hotel? The hotel bought a policy ex post facto. The insurors planned to make a profit. They knew they were going to make BIG pay outs, hoping for structured settlements over decades. I wonder how much the premiums are on an ex post facto policy? Did Remington do the same, what with the assets they still had at the chapter 11?

Do you have evidence for this re. Remington?

Yes they are. Mr. Smith/Mrs. Jones are a lot simpler than a corporation, an insurance conglomeration, and a very narrow court ruling.

Its not a narrow court ruling at all, it has actually expanded the CT FTP laws. I imagine other states will be looking at their FTP laws now, and so will other litigants.