A $73 million settlement to a seven-year legal battle against the maker of the semi-automatic rifle used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre was announced Tuesday morning, in a decision that pierces a federal law that has long shielded gunmakers from liability. "The immunity protecting the gun industry is not bulletproof," said Josh Koskoff, of Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder, who announced the settlement during a press conference at the Trumbull Marriott. Gun manufacturers and sellers enjoy broad immunity from claims seeking to hold them liable for gun violence by third parties under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, passed by Congress in 2005. Attorneys for the plaintiffs successfully argued that the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act is a valid exception to PLCAA, after withstanding multiple legal challenges and two Remington bankruptcies. "Basically, the takeaway here is that if the gun industry breaks the law, whether it's a criminal or civil law, there can be accountability for the repercussions of that," Koskoff said. The 2005 legislation led to greed that enabled gun manufacturers such as Bushmaster to target young males with their advertising, without fear of consequences or scrutiny, Koskoff said, amid a backdrop of victims' family members in a hotel conference room. Koskoff displayed an image of an advertisement for a Bushmaster AK-15 with the slogan: "Consider Your Man Card Reissued." He pointed out that gun sales of the AR-15 were roughly 100,000 in 2005. But by 2012, more than 2 million were sold. "What's better for insurance companies than collecting a premium that you don't think you have to pay out on?" Koskoff said. "And what is more dangerous than any industry believing they can do whatever they want, if profit is the only motive?" The $73 million settlement was the maximum the four insurance companies for the defendants could pay, Koskoff said. One by one, the families of victims spoke, sharing stories about the moments leading to that fateful day and the agonizing aftermath. "They behaved irresponsibly to make more money, and their corporate partners turned the other cheek," said David Wheeler, the father of 6-year-old Benjamin, who would now be 15. "Today is an example of our system working, an example of the process that, while lengthy, it makes it clear to the manufactures of these products that if you want to sell them, you must do so in a reasonable and responsible way."  

'This Is a Combat Weapon'

The settlement money will be split among the families of the nine victims named in the suit. A spokeswoman for the law firm declined to disclose the attorney fees. The plaintiffs sued Remington Arms, the company that made the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle that the lone gunman used to kill 26 people. The lawsuit, Soto v. Bushmaster International, sought to hold the gun company responsible for "reckless marketing." The suit argued that Remington aggressively marketed the "assaultive and militaristic capabilities" of the weapon. "You don't have to be a lawyer to say, 'This is a combat weapon, why is there a reason to sell it at all?'" Koskoff said. The plaintiffs invoked two exceptions to the PLCAA in their complaint: negligent entrustment, which provides for recovery of damages when a person puts a dangerous device in the hands of a person who is not equipped to handle it properly, and the predicate exemption, which refers to claims alleging a violation of statute applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms—in this case, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. The case went to the state Supreme Court, after Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis granted a motion to strike, ruling that the complaint did not state legally sufficient claims under the exceptions. The high court rejected the negligent entrustment claim, but allowed the CUTPA claim to stand. In March 2019, the court issued a 4-3 decision finding the plaintiffs' CUPTA claims legally valid based on the defendants' "militaristic marketing" of the AR-15 rifle to civilians. The case was remanded to the trial court. Anthony Minchella, an attorney with offices in Middlebury who has been following the case, said it's the first time a plaintiff has successfully argued the state's unfair trade practices law as an exception to the PLCAA. "Connecticut's Supreme Court was bold and courageous, I am proud to say, in its decision in Soto," Minchella said. In the future, it may be easier for victims of gun violence to sue gun manufacturers—not just in Connecticut, but in other jurisdictions as well, according to some lawyers. "Like the tobacco companies 20 years ago, I'm confident that the industry is going to control their destiny to the extent they can by settling the more sympathetic cases and litigating the less sympathetic cases," said Philip Russell, a former prosecutor and attorney based in Greenwich. "It would be hard to imagine a more sympathetic class of plaintiffs than those with whom this settlement was reached." Russell said he'd like to see the Legislature "start mandating insurance for people who cling to their right to bear arms." "This is part of the social cost that guns inflict on our society," he added. "So for a variety of wrong reasons, it's a good resolution."