Sandy Hook

$73 million deal could open door to more lawsuits

Insurers for bankrupt gun manufacturer Remington reached a $73 million settlement with the families of victims in the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre.

Adam Lanza, a 20-year-old man with mental health problems, used Remington Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle to kill 20 students and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, before killing himself with a handgun.

The rifle was legally owned by his mother. The plaintiffs filed suit against the company in 2014. Normally a gun maker is protected under federal law from wrongful death suits brought by family members. But this lawsuit targeted Remington’s marketing approach.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys amassed internal company documents and made a case arguing Remington had preached responsible gun ownership on one hand, but directed marketing at young men, reinforcing the deadly combat aspects of the weapon and promoting ownership as a sign of manliness

One ad showed the rifle with the tagline, “Consider Your Man Card Reissued.”

Remington had argued the market was irrelevant, but a Connecticut judge disagreed. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the company’s appeal.

Remington had offered a $33 million settlement before going bankrupt in 2020. The $73 million is the maximum for which the company’s four insurers could be held liable.

Some may applaud this outcome and we understand that. Who doesn’t feel sympathy for the families of those innocent souls who lost their lives that day in 2012?

But the fact remains the gunman, Adam Lanza, was mentally ill and had been under the care of mental health professionals off and on since middle school.

The vast majority of people could see those Remington ads and never contemplate real violence. But we don’t know what will set off someone with mental illness who may be prone to violence. Maybe a gun advertisement, maybe something that seems totally innocuous.

How do companies judge what effect their marketing will have on the mentally ill. How do they safeguard against violent acts?

Will we see more such lawsuits over marketing? With a multi-million dollar potential payout, what do you think?