Remington Did not Settle Sandy Hook Lawsuit

Remington Logo Jim Grant
Remington joins the ranks of companies fleeing anti-gun states. IMG Jim Grant

U.S.A.-(– Much of old Media are parroting headlines similar to these examples:

  • Sandy Hook Families Settle With Gunmaker for $73 Million Over Massacre (New York Times)
  • Families of Sandy Hook victims reach $73 million settlement with Remington (NPR)
  • Sandy Hook families reach $73 million settlement with gun manufacturer Remington (CNN)
  • Families of Sandy Hook victims settle with Remington (BBC)
  • Sandy Hook families settle for $73M with gun maker Remington (AP)

The problem with these headlines, as with much of the reporting on the old, dominant media, is they are all false.

Remington, the gunmaker, did not settle with anyone. Remington the gunmaker no longer exists. The people who settled with the families are not gunmakers. They are insurance companies. Remington had no say in the matter. If the case had gone to trial, Remington very likely would have prevailed. The lawsuit was always highly problematic.

From the National Shooting Sports Foundation:

Insurers for the defunct Remington Outdoor Company (ROC) reached a settlement for $73 million with families suing the gun manufacturer under Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUPTA). The insurers reached the settlement since the company no longer exists after falling into bankruptcy. NSSF noted that no manufacturer admitted liability and the plaintiffs never produced evidence that advertising ever influenced Nancy Lanza, who legally purchased the rifle, nor her son who murdered her and committed the heinous crimes. The Connecticut Supreme Court wrote in its Soto v. Bushmaster (4-3) opinion, “[T]he plaintiffs allege that the defendants’ wrongful advertising magnified the lethality of the Sandy Hook massacre by inspiring Lanza or causing him to select a more efficiently deadly weapon for his attack. Proving such a causal link at trial may prove to be a Herculean task.” NSSF believes the Court incorrectly allowed this one claim to go forward to discovery and is confident ROC would have prevailed if this case proceeded to trial.

Remington, when it existed, was protected by the  Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The act protects arms manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers from lawsuits. If they follow the law in the manufacturing and sales process. they cannot be sued for criminal actions committed with their legally sold products.

The Act should have been the PLCA (Protection of Lawful Commerce Act.) It should have covered all manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers. A free society cannot function if people who have no control over the actions of criminals are held responsible for the actions of criminals. No food producer, alcohol producer, automobile producer, or clothing producer can survive under such liability.

Will the next lawsuit be against Nike for the shoes worn by a mugger? Against Ford for the truck used by a drive-by shooter? Against Trek for the bicycle used by a bank robber?

All of those are just as valid as lawsuits against a gun manufacturer, after a gun, they manufactured and legally sold was stolen after the legal owner was murdered, and then used in mass murder.

Everyone should note this was not damages awarded by a court, even if Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence labels it as such. From

This case is thought to be the first damages award of this magnitude against a U.S. gun manufacturer based on a mass shooting, according to Adam Skaggs, chief counsel and policy director at Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

This was a settlement between the parties of the lawsuit, not court awarded damages. The court awarded damages can be appealed. A settlement cannot.

The insurance companies are listed in this article at

At the time of the shooting, four insurers had a total of five policies in effect on Remington Arms and its companies. The four insurers sharing in the settlement payout to the families of the shooting’s victims are Ironshore (a Liberty Mutual subsidiary), James River Insurance Co., ACE (now Chubb), and North American Capacity Insurance Co. (Swiss Re Corporate Solutions America Insurance Corp.).

Why would insurance companies agree to a settlement for the maximum amount they insured Remington for? It does not appear they gain much if anything.

Glenn Beck believes the insurance companies are being pressured by the government to do so. He thinks the whole point is to make gun manufacturers uninsurable.   He may be correct. This settlement did not happen until after President Biden was elected.

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Dean Weingarten

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I wonder if Remington would have the same right to sue as Nicolas Sandman, Kyle Rittenhouse and others. The deception by the left is rampant in their speak, in the news and in advertisements telling lies and making statements they claim are fact when in fact they are far from a proven truth and it goes all the way to our current Liar and Thief uncle Joe kamalatoe Obiden.


Wild Bill

That is true about the left, but what would be Reminton’s cause of action in a counter suit? Remington’s insurance carriers are surrogated to any claims that Remington would have had, but they did not bring anything up.


The insurance company paid the suit on behalf of Remington corporation who were their representatives. The corporation in and of itself was dissolved and no longer in business so to say that Remington paid the suit is riding a fine line and the edge could be challenged in court but by Remington’s prior actions, they just want it all to go away and would rather not challenge it. It’s the perception of what the news media is saying that is the problem and IMO, logistically incorrect because of circumstances and timing of the situation. It could be challenged on that… Read more »


The real issue is those affected by the loss of a loved one during violent crime will suffer for their lifetime. When a community is shaken to the core by a event like Sandy Hook those scars will run deep. I know that the courts can not be counted on that liberal judges plea deals made behind closed doors never seem to confront those who have lost so much. The people morning turn to those with the loudest voices placing blame were they are directed. In sandy Hook the first to move in were the anti gun folks next the… Read more »

Wild Bill

The politicians are just not letting a good tragedy to to waste. That’s all.


I still have questions that have never been answered, yes, a tragedy, but certain events before having never been made public, and swept under the politicians and the school board!!!!!


Afternoon if you resuch school shootings nothing new since the late 1800.It how one political party distorts that information for political gain. The state of our union is not strong Biden will lie tonight mask are now out as the political wind no longer blow in the dem s favor


I fear for our country as Nato is going to let the Ukraine join during a time of war. Americans will pick up the tab .

Last edited 11 months ago by john

They never do that is why they used to kiss babies than the mother.


I have to disagree with you Dean, the lawyers get a very nice piece of that money to put in their pockets. Had it gone to trial, and they lost they wouldn’t make as much


Ray – it will be really ‘interesting’ to see just how big of a cut the liars oops lawyers actually got – most likely we will not be told though.


Any buisness that supports this settlement can find themselves on the other side of the decision as this is a double edged sword . You fools can now be sued for your products use in a crime even if you do not condone the crime your product was used by a criminal and you are nowcresponsable for that person’s actions . Have fun with that !


M454 – yep – it is the concept called ‘vicarious liability’ – the liars oops lawyers have pushing for that for decades – at least since 1975 in WA state that I personally know of. So far thhey haven’t made a huge amount of progress though but with the latest capitulation by the insurance companies, who knows.


Yes finally a writer who distillates the core essence of what actually happened. For those that actually pay attention Insurance companies are not only corrupt but not really we the people’s friends. Research AIG too big to fail etc.

It’s one big club & we the people ain’t in it.

Last edited 11 months ago by Tank

remington was a victim they had insurance moved to a new state they did settle as there insurance company works for them. There had to be agreement between them both to move forward. The parents have gone after the wrong party they need to go after the democrats with hard questions such as why can you not enforce the laws already in place in there sanctuary cities . How did the atf fbi local police not and all involved not do their jobs. When a teenager is dressing acting inappropriate on the police radar you do not reward him or… Read more »

Last edited 11 months ago by john
Wild Bill

Respectfully, the claim against Remington was surrogated to the insurance company. The decision was in the hands of the insurance company and its lawyers, exclusively.
I like the rest of what you said, though.


When you hire a insurance company you get the whole team that includes their legal division Agreed.You also relinquish your ability to change the agreement of that settlement. I think it was a choice remington made to insure themselves which was beneficial to the company. If their legal team did the work the outcome could have been much worse


some of this is correct, they do have to ,like lawyers ,have their clients approval before agreement , no client no need to seek approval. the new owner of the name has no power over the past company dealings, nor do they have any of the liabilities

Last edited 11 months ago by swmft

That is how the corporate world works change names owners banks the CEO in charge everything changes.What does not change is the shareholders of a public company. I do not run the company any longer I have a controlling interest due to the shares I own. I do not attend meetings I make a phone call And They Make it Happen .


the insurance companies did what they did to minimize their expense, plain and simple when the judge broke up company and sold assets they no longer had a client in their eyes just potential bad will. win the case they would be the ones remembered “they protect baby killers” this from pro abortion people


My “representative” gave a poll tonight. He asked if I will be listening to Xiden’s “state of the (DIS)union”. My answer I chose was NO. No comments were allowed! As Francis said; “HELL NO” !! Why waste my time listening to an ILLEGITIMATE OCCUPIER of OUR American White House government!!!!!

Wild Bill

Yep, I’m thinking that “The Curse of Oak Island” is a better use of time than the SOTU lies.


The Biden administration is a freak show Washington Democrats out of tough all democrats and republican rinos are in the same club. My hope was for the morning headline Biden leaves the office of President at the State of the Union

Last edited 11 months ago by john

Sadly, Remington bankrupted out of their liability for the faulty 700 series rifles they sold. Those defective products were fully subject to civil suit because the manufacturer was the cause of the injury. But Remington had zero liability for the acts of a madman using one of their products. It’s like suing GM because a drunk driver crashed into you with a Suburban.


was not just the trigger on the 700 it was all xmark pro triggers so everyone who bought the upgraded version of any of their rifles had a problem there was another recall just before , I remember was the safety spring either a big drain to fix all the guns I had one for each recall


I had three, Triggers were the problem and even with updates still had problems. I still have my Remington 22 that my mother bought me years ago, but as far as getting another Remington, chances are not good!


I agree with the author, had Remington still been a viable entity, they stood a good chance of winning the case. The plaintiffs based their argument on a little jot of Connecticut Law regarding advertising, but they had no evidence that the shooter had ever seen the ad. It was supposition on their part. It’s not even known if the shooter, Lanza, an Autistic, could even read. Besides the point that he killed and stole the weapons he used. It doesn’t matter that it was a family member he stole them from, there’s simply no evidence that Remington’s advertising had… Read more »