Create Account



The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
Remington should NOT be held accountable for the evil that men do

#21

(02-16-2022, 06:04 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: Here are some interesting facts about the case.  Remington didn't settle.  Remington's insurance company is the one that settled.  Remington declared bankruptcy in 2020.

There is a federal law, passed in 2005, which protects gun manufacturers from liability for acts committed by third parties. 

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/1...20products.

"The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S.-based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime."

An actual functioning gun manufacturer, not a bankrupt one like Remington, would vigorously defend itself under that law.

But then there's this:  

Link (sorry if there's a paywall)

"The federal immunity law has an exception, under which manufacturers may be liable for injuries resulting from violations of state laws dealing with the marketing of their products."

Why were insurance companies involved in the first place if gun manufacturers have indemnity?  Obvious Remington had insurance policies to protect the company against such action to begin with.

What this case does is change the landscape.  Will insurance companies continue to insure firearm manufacturers, and if so, what happens to the premiums?  Will firearm manufacturers now have to set aside hundreds of millions of dollars for future decisions and settlements.  What does that mean for financiers?  At what point will we see firearm manufacturers unable to roll over existing debt as it matures.

Then again, this might fizzle out to nothing.
CCL Stroudcrowd1
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!



Messages In This Thread
RE: Remington should NOT be held accountable for the evil that men do - by captivating - 02-16-2022, 09:45 PM



Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.


ABOUT US
The Jungle Forums is the Jaguars' biggest fan message board. Talking about the Jags since 2006, the Jungle was the team-endorsed home of all things Jaguars.

Since 2017, the Jungle is now independent of the team but still run by the same crew. We are here to support and discuss all things Jaguars and all things Duval!