2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: Glasser on July 28, 2021, 11:35:30 AM
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/remington-reaches-historic-33-million-settlement-families-sandy-hook-victims
Remington Reaches Historic $33 Million Settlement With Families Of Sandy Hook Victims
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/remington-reaches-historic-33-million-settlement-families-sandy-hook-victims
Remington Reaches Historic $33 Million Settlement With Families Of Sandy Hook Victims
The article says the settlement offer is on the table, and that the families haven't accepted yet -- though the OPINION of the writer is it's a pretty safe conclusion that they will.
I ASSUME because the figure was announced, that means the agreement is all but official, but the article didn't state that. So, the terms/settlement could still change or be rejected.
The lawyers are already talking about "next steps." Settlements usually include no admission of liability and a prohibition against seeking further damages, which should include punitive damages. I don't know that there are any "next steps" to take.
In my opinion, this story might just be an attempt to rekindle the memory of Sandy Hook as talks of Assault Weapons bans are being tossed around in Biden's White House and the media.
-
Tactic by Rem? Settle, then not pay at all. Go out of business again. I mean they are trolling the defense. The 18,000 pages of documents that was requested included comic pictures, facebook comments, etc...Troll level 9999
-
The offer is reportedly from 2 of Remington’s insurance companies
https://www.cnyhomepage.com/news/local-news/remington-offers-settlement-in-sandy-hook-suit/
-
Waiting for those parents to sue the makers of the antidepressant Celexa, the School district and his doctors, they had way more to do with the incident directly than Remmy ever did. Instead they are going after Alex Jones for being Alex Jones after the fact.
-
Granted I haven't read the specifics of the claim but I can't understand how the plaintiffs have any chance of winning at all. They made the product that was perfectly legal and they didn't sell it directly to the shooter so its not like anyone can claim they were negligent.
-
Waiting for those parents to sue the makers of the antidepressant Celexa, the School district and his doctors, they had way more to do with the incident directly than Remmy ever did. Instead they are going after Alex Jones for being Alex Jones after the fact.
That would probably be a very hard case to prove.
-
Granted I haven't read the specifics of the claim but I can't understand how the plaintiffs have any chance of winning at all. They made the product that was perfectly legal and they didn't sell it directly to the shooter so its not like anyone can claim they were negligent.
Sandy Hook was in 2012.
It's now 8 1/2 years later.
It's not about having the proof to win.
It's about dragging it out long enough that (1) the gun maker can't afford to defend against the suit any longer, (2) the insurer/s decide/s to settle rather than pay more in litigation costs which carries with it the risk of losing as well.
-
Gun Maker didn’t foot most of the bill for defending the suit.
Insurance Companies would have under Duty to Defend in policy.
That’s why Insurance is offering settlement.
I don’t know this for a fact but after 25 years of being an insurance adjuster I’m confident in how this rolls.
(Changed professions 3 years ago as Insurance is getting worse for the customer.)
Your general point is still valid though
-
Granted I haven't read the specifics of the claim but I can't understand how the plaintiffs have any chance of winning at all. They made the product that was perfectly legal and they didn't sell it directly to the shooter so its not like anyone can claim they were negligent.
They really didn't have a chance. Not only the point you brought up, but that he killed his mom and stole her guns. So even more degrees of separation from Rem. Then add in the federal protection too. IIRC they're going after Rem because the way the rifle was marketed (correct me if wrong).
This is a common link with a lot of active shooters and anti depressants. A lot of them are on it. Here are a few off the top of my head: Sandy Hook, Vegas, Maddison Stone Douglas, Columbine, Oregon theater.
Then there are some who do it out of hate like the Pulse Night Club. And partial Columbine (athletes bullying). 1 of the shooters told an athlete who was nice to him to leave and didn't shoot him.
-
One of the big problems with our legal system.
Is that it is designed to "wear people out".
Not provide for a quick and fair decision.
Like Young v Hawaii. He'll be dead before he wins his case.
That is not a justice system, that is warfare.
Wars are won by attrition, not brute force, or what is right or wrong.
Easy fix, none of this lawyers taking on a case and only being
paid if they win. Pay as you go. Or let the lawyer do it "Pro bono"
because it is the right thing to do, with no reward from
deep pockets at the end.
That will narrow the field.
:thumbsup:
-
One of the big problems with our legal system.
Is that it is designed to "wear people out".
Not provide for a quick and fair decision.
Like Young v Hawaii. He'll be dead before he wins his case.
That is not a justice system, that is warfare.
Wars are won by attrition, not brute force, or what is right or wrong.
Easy fix, none of this lawyers taking on a case and only being
paid if they win. Pay as you go. Or let the lawyer do it "Pro bono"
because it is the right thing to do, with no reward from
deep pockets at the end.
That will narrow the field.
:thumbsup:
Hundred percent agree with first paragraph.
Second paragraph, if you win a lawsuit in Hawaii you can file for fees and costs. I don’t know if it’s Federal but this was in Federal Court.
The insurance company I was at I was in the investigative unit for a while. We denied a claim for a house burning down because the customer arsoned it.
Claim was for $400,000 dollars. Customer sued us.
We won, filed for fees and costs, it was granted by the Court, and he owed us $300,000 for legal fees and costs.
They never paid us but can’t ever get credit or a loan again. And I don’t know what their own fees and costs were.
And that was a relatively quick trial.
You sue someone and lose. Be ready to pay out of your own ass.
Insurance involved. It becomes all economic except These folks held out longer than most against against big insurance.
-
This is a common link with a lot of active shooters and anti depressants. A lot of them are on it. Here are a few off the top of my head: Sandy Hook, Vegas, Maddison Stone Douglas, Columbine, Oregon theater.
37 Mass Shooters Who Were On Antidepressants
https://thoughtcatalog.com/jeremy-london/2019/09/37-mass-shooters-who-were-on-antidepressants/
-
Sue those fawkers !
Big Pharm.
Talk about a Class. Victims of 37 mass shootings.
They’ll settle that shit.
Probably still long road though.
Only nine of the 26 Sandy Hook victims (not counting the mom) are plaintiffs.
$11 million for the lawyers if they accept the settlement.
-
Hundred percent agree with first paragraph.
Second paragraph, if you win a lawsuit in Hawaii you can file for fees and costs. I don’t know if it’s Federal but this was in Federal Court.
The insurance company I was at I was in the investigative unit for a while. We denied a claim for a house burning down because the customer arsoned it.
Claim was for $400,000 dollars. Customer sued us.
We won, filed for fees and costs, it was granted by the Court, and he owed us $300,000 for legal fees and costs.
They never paid us but can’t ever get credit or a loan again. And I don’t know what their own fees and costs were.
And that was a relatively quick trial.
You sue someone and lose. Be ready to pay out of your own ass.
Insurance involved. It becomes all economic except These folks held out longer than most against against big insurance.
Tom Fitton is famous for saying the way things are now 'The legal process IS the punishment'.
Robert Barnes talks all the time about how one of the biggest considerations is pursuing a legal case is what venue you can try it in and if that state has Anti-SLAPP laws.
-
Sandy Hook was in 2012.
It's now 8 1/2 years later.
It's not about having the proof to win.
It's about dragging it out long enough that (1) the gun maker can't afford to defend against the suit any longer, (2) the insurer/s decide/s to settle rather than pay more in litigation costs which carries with it the risk of losing as well.
I get that tactic but shouldn't the suit be tossed out as a nuisance suit then? Even if not can the lawyer bill really add up to that much where 33 millions seems like a good deal to settle?
-
This is a common link with a lot of active shooters and anti depressants. A lot of them are on it. Here are a few off the top of my head: Sandy Hook, Vegas, Maddison Stone Douglas, Columbine, Oregon theater.
The question then is whether the anti depressants contributed to their violent actions or whether they already had violent tendencies and the anti depressents were trying to reduce or treat the violent tendencies.
-
The question then is whether the anti depressants contributed to their violent actions or whether they already had violent tendencies and the anti depressents were trying to reduce or treat the violent tendencies.
Instead of MDA and ET spending millions on BS stuff, they should spend some on research of this.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
I get that tactic but shouldn't the suit be tossed out as a nuisance suit then? Even if not can the lawyer bill really add up to that much where 33 millions seems like a good deal to settle?
Really? You think a lawsuit the DEFENDANT can't win on the facts is FRIVOLOUS? You should be a defense attorney if you can get a strong plaintiff's case tossed on the grounds that the defense has no chance. :worship:
A case has to be frivolous on its face. There have been hearings that decided the plaintiffs can proceed, so that whole discussion is moot.
Judge rejects gun maker’s bid to toss Sandy Hook litigation
https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/judge-rejects-gun-makers-bid-to-toss-sandy-hook-litigation/
As for the amounts -- getting a precedence-setting decision can devastate the entire gun industry. Ever read the book "The Runaway Jury?" There was a multi-million dollar legal fund created by the big tobacco companies to fight any lawsuits that claimed cigarettes killed a relative. If just one claimant prevailed, it would open the floodgates for similar lawsuits to be decided against the tobacco industry.
(Note: The movie changed the plot for "The Runaway Jury" to be about school shootings, claiming the gun makers were complicit.)
-
Really? You think a lawsuit the DEFENDANT can't win on the facts is FRIVOLOUS? You should be a defense attorney if you can get a strong plaintiff's case tossed on the grounds that the defense has no chance. :worship:
A case has to be frivolous on its face. There have been hearings that decided the plaintiffs can proceed, so that whole discussion is moot.
Judge rejects gun maker’s bid to toss Sandy Hook litigation
https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/judge-rejects-gun-makers-bid-to-toss-sandy-hook-litigation/
As for the amounts -- getting a precedence-setting decision can devastate the entire gun industry. Ever read the book "The Runaway Jury?" There was a multi-million dollar legal fund created by the big tobacco companies to fight any lawsuits that claimed cigarettes killed a relative. If just one claimant prevailed, it would open the floodgates for similar lawsuits to be decided against the tobacco industry.
(Note: The movie changed the plot for "The Runaway Jury" to be about school shootings, claiming the gun makers were complicit.)
I am probably not using the legal term frivolous the right way.
I would just think/hope there would have to be some initial grounds for a suit in order for it to go through the courts. I know why they go after the big companies.
-
Motion for Summary Judgement.
Looks like decision to deny motion was in State Court which is unusual because often you would remove a case like this to Federal Court.
Company HQ’d in a different State than where initial complaint was filed.
Once Motion was denied settlement offer was extended.
Any attorneys out there can correct me.
I am NOT a lawyer.