Remington had argued that there was no evidence to establish that its marketing had anything to do with the shooting.
The company also said the lawsuit should have been dismissed because of a federal law that grants broad immunity to the gun industry. But the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that Remington could be sued under state law over how he marketed the rifle. The arms maker appealed to the US Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case.
The case was followed by gun control advocates, gun rights advocates and gun manufacturers across the country, as it had the potential to provide a roadmap for victims. more mass shootings to circumvent federal law and prosecute gun manufacturers.
Remington, one of the nation’s oldest firearms makers founded in 1816, filed for bankruptcy for a second time in 2020 and its assets were later sold to multiple companies. The manufacturer has been dogged by lawsuits and retail restrictions following the school shooting.
Four insurers of the now-bankrupt company agreed to pay the full amount of available coverage, totaling $73 million, the plaintiffs said.
“This victory should serve as a wake-up call not only to the firearms industry, but also to the insurance and banking companies that support it. For the firearms industry, it is time to stop recklessly market all firearms for all uses and instead ask how marketing can reduce risk rather than woo it,” said Josh Koskoff, plaintiffs’ attorney.