Close
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24
  1. #21
    Grand Master Know It All Sawin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    144th & I25
    Posts
    3,936

    Default

    I can't help but notice the original headline was about $33 Million and now it's $73 Million.... that's also some insane ballooning on top of it.
    Please leave any relevant feedback here:
    Sawin - Feedback thread.

  2. #22
    COAR SpecOps Team Leader theGinsue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Colo Spr
    Posts
    21,951
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Yes, they set a hugely bad precedent.

    If Remington thinks that this is the end of it, they're dead wrong. They've opened the floodgates for themselves and every other firearms manufacturer. This is just the beginning.

    Dumbasses.
    Ginsue - Admin
    Proud Infidel Since 1965

    "You can't spell genius without Ginsue." -Ray1970, Apr 2020

    Ginsue's Feedback

  3. #23
    Industry Partner BPTactical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Metro
    Posts
    13,931

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gman View Post
    Indeed.

    Some felon drives through a parade killing and wounding many people? Don't go after the driver, go after the vehicle manufacturer. Yeah, that makes sense.
    But go after the manufacturer because of the way they advertised it.

    WTF over?
    The most important thing to be learned from those who demand "Equality For All" is that all are not equal...

    Gun Control - seeking a Hardware solution for a Software problem...

  4. #24
    Grand Master Know It All eddiememphis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    3,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by theGinsue View Post
    If Remington thinks that this is the end of it, they're dead wrong.
    There is no Remington anymore. They went bankrupt last July and their divisions were auctioned off in September.

    Expect to see more lawsuits filed, even though this wasn't a direct ruling by a court. This was a settlement with those that filed suit and the insurance company that held Remington's liability.

    This was an odd case, since there is federal protection against this type of suit, yet Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled the it could go forward, based on their marketing, not the actual production of the rifles.

    Also, since the company went under, they were not able to see it through to court.

    The precedent that is scary for the manufacturers is that fewer insurance companies will be willing to take that big of a hit so will either not insure them or raise the premium so high as to be unaffordable for them.

    Many large insurers are run by people that are sympathetic to the left and are vulnerable to political pressure.
    Last edited by eddiememphis; 02-15-2022 at 20:53.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •