[greymule]

The Remington example reminds me of the attempts years ago by some gun-phobic cities to hold firearms manufacturers liable for damages wrought upon society by criminals using those firearms.

This back-door attack on the Second Amendment gained some traction among the anti-gun crowd. The New York Times praised it as an "interesting" new approach.

However, the courts consistently held that for a company to be liable, their product had to be defective in some way. (A couple of anti-gun judges went along with the program but were later overruled.)

The court rulings, along with subsequent action by state legislatures and I think even Congress, put an end to the notion that the maker of a nondefective product can be held liable for the misuse of that product.

Yes, once deep pockets (insurance companies) became involved, there were nothing but perverse incentives for trying to hit the lottery by suing somebody. Judges, lawyers, everybody benefited. Even insurance companies protested only weakly, since the litigation explosion allowed them to justify higher premiums.

Since I moved to Alabama, I've become certified as a pistol instructor. The legal advice I've received from various sources (a law professor, a local judge, my lawyer cousin, other instructors) is that if any prospective participant in a course asks whether I have insurance, say that the class has just become full and that the next session is scheduled for 2025—in Greenland.

RadioBlue said, "I don't see how this could stand."

It probably wouldn't, but as in many cases, it's so expensive (and risky) to go to court, the insurance company might prefer to write a check to put the fire out before it spreads.