Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families’ Liability Lawsuit Against Gunmaker

By | November 12, 2019

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to the gun industry, refusing to block a lawsuit against Remington Arms Co. by family members of nine people killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre.

The lawsuit blames the gunmaker’s marketing practices for inspiring the killer, Adam Lanza, who used a Remington-made Bushmaster XM15 military-style rifle while killing 26 people at the Connecticut school, 20 of them first-grade children.

The justices rejected Remington’s appeal Tuesday without comment or published dissent. The rebuff leaves intact a Connecticut Supreme Court ruling that carved a way around a 2005 federal law enacted to shield the gun industry from lawsuits. Gun-rights advocates including the National Rifle Association had urged the high court to hear Remington’s appeal.

The Connecticut court decision “threatens to unleash a flood of lawsuits nationwide that would subject lawful business practices to crippling litigation burdens,” Remington argued in its appeal.

The families said in court papers that Remington “chose to market the XM15-E2S as a highly lethal weapon designed for purposes that are illegal — namely, killing other human beings.”

The Supreme Court’s decision to let the suit go forward could give the families access to company documents and internal communications, information that could help others seeking to press similar suits.

The 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act insulates gun manufacturers and merchants but makes an exception if a company has “knowingly violated a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product.”

Divided Court

Remington said the clause, known as the “predicate exception,” covers only laws that explicitly regulate the firearms business, not general consumer-protection statutes like the Connecticut law.

“The Connecticut Supreme Court gave the predicate exception such a broad reading that it threatens to swallow the PLCAA’s immunity rule,” the company argued.

The Connecticut court said in a 4-3 vote that the exception lets the families sue over Remington’s marketing practices under Connecticut’s unfair trade practices law.

“If Congress had intended to limit the scope of the predicate exception to violations of statutes that are directly, expressly, or exclusively applicable to firearms, however, it easily could have used such language, as it has on other occasions,” said the majority opinion.

The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case lets it sidestep a divisive and emotional clash. The justices are already scheduled to hear one gun case, a fight scheduled for argument Dec. 2 over New York restrictions on where handguns can be taken.

The case is Remington Arms v. Soto, 19-168.

Was this article valuable?

Here are more articles you may enjoy.

Latest Comments

  • November 22, 2019 at 2:31 pm
    Jack says:
    Ummmm- Sorry got a different answer from claims. While the coverage for "personal injury" is included in the standard wording of the policy, the specific exclusions I posted a... read more
  • November 22, 2019 at 10:56 am
    Ummmm.... says:
    The biggest intentional act liability a family has is with their children. What if they throw rocks at a window and break it, what if they do the same thing to a car, cyber bu... read more
  • November 22, 2019 at 10:54 am
    Ummmm.... says:
    And while I never disgareed insurance should not be intentional acts. I agree that it should not, but we don't live in a perfect world, you need to have it in real life situat... read more

Add a CommentSee All Comments (99)Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


More News
More News Features