Sandy Hook Settlement Impact On Mass Shooting Cases And Legal Strategies In Defending Gun Manufacturers And Premises Owners

• Published date: 09 May 2022
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Criminal Law, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, Personal Injury, Crime
• Law Firm: Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
• Author: Mr E. Stratton Horres Jr., Karen L. Bashor and Taylor A. Buono

Nine families who lost loved ones in the 2012 Sandy Hook mass shooting that killed 26 people, including 20 six- and seven-year-olds, recently entered a $73 million settlement with the manufacturer of the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle used in the tragedy. The settlement has once again drawn sharp activist attention to the epidemic of mass shootings in this country

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, passed in 2005, provides a significant shield for gun manufacturers and dealers, preventing all civil liability actions against gun manufacturers or sellers for damages resulting from the criminal conduct of a third party.

On Easter weekend 2022 there were three mass shootings, leaving two dead and at least 26 wounded by gunshots, and others injured in the aftermath. This came on the heels of the Brooklyn, N.Y., subway shooting in which 33 shots were fired, striking 10 individuals.

In this article we will discuss what the Sandy Hook settlement portends for gun manufacturers and premises owners in ongoing and future cases, as well as the legal strategies involved in defending them.

The settlement

The Sandy Hook lawsuit arose out of the Dec. 14, 2012, shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. In February 2022, nine of the Sandy Hook victims' families reached a settlement agreement with Remington Arms Co. for $73 million.

In the lawsuit, first filed in 2014, the families alleged that Remington used aggressive and "violence-glorifying" marketing in selling the AR-15 used in the tragedy. The lawsuit faced a significant hurdle in the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which generally protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from liability when crimes are committed with their products.¹

To get around the PLCAA, the families' attorneys argued that Remington's marketing violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, (CUTPA), which prohibits advertising that promotes criminal conduct.² In 2019, the Connecticut Supreme Court allowed the case to move forward under the CUTPA, after the state court dismissed the case.³ The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Remington's appeal.

Before the settlement, in July 2021, Remington offered $33 million to settle the case. The families did not accept this settlement offer "because they wanted to ensure they had obtained enough documents and taken enough depositions to prove Remington's misconduct ..."⁴

According to the press release from the families' attorneys, the $73 million payment comes from four insurers, and is the full amount of coverage available. The families intended that this settlement send a clear message to insurance carriers about the significant risks in issuing policies to businesses in the weapons industry.

In addition to the settlement payment, the plaintiffs "have obtained and can make public thousands of pages of internal company documents" that go to...