Valor sues Grunow

[feedthehogs]

Saturday, July 26
Gun dealer sues widow to recoup fees


By Bill Douthat, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 26, 2003



WEST PALM BEACH -- Pam Grunow won't be held personally liable for legal fees spent by a gun distributor that successfully challenged a lawsuit brought by the widow of slain teacher Barry Grunow.

The gun dealer, Valor Corp., won't go after the widow's assets but is suing her as a representative of her husband's estate, Valor attorney Tom Warner said in court Friday.

Pam Grunow was worried that she might lose her house if Valor won the right to reimbursement for costs of defending itself against the lawsuit, said Rebecca Larson, Grunow's attorney.

Larson said the estate has no assets.

Grunow lost her lawsuit accusing Valor of being responsible for her husband's death.

The Broward County company sold the.25-caliber handgun that Lake Worth Middle School student Nathaniel Brazill used to kill Grunow on the last day of school in 2000.

Valor asked Circuit Judge Jorge Labarga on Friday for a ruling that the company is entitled to collect its legal expenses from the Grunow estate. Labarga withheld ruling while the 4th District Court of Appeal decides a related appeal by Pam Grunow.

A jury in November found Valor partially liable for Barry Grunow's death because of negligence in distributing the handgun without safety devices.

This year, Labarga tossed out the jury verdict, ruling that the finding of negligence was inconsistent because jurors also found that the handgun was not a defective product.
**************************

You don't really want to go after a widow of a slain teacher.
On the other hand Grunow was warned of the consequences of the suit.

She said she wanted to make a statement to the gun industry while all along those of us that know the law firm knew it was Montgomery behind it all.

She has already gotten settlements from the Pawn shop insurance company where the gun was sold legally to the killers relative, plus settlements from the owner of the gun and his insurance company.

But that wasn't enough, they wanted to go after Valor.

Montgomery was fresh off his win against the tobbaco industry and was looking for an in to the gun industry.

Wayne

 

[greyhound]

Its gonna be like it was with tobacco (and soon McDonald's) - a whole bunch of lawsuits, knowing you will lose, and then one day years down the road, some knuckleheaded jury will buy the "what about the children" junk and -

the floodgates will be open.

 

[Standing Wolf]

More power to Valor! If leftist extremists had to face the consequences of their actions, they'd suddenly develop at least a rudimentary sense of responsibility.

 

[redhead]

In cases such as these, which I consider to be a frivolous lawsuit, the loser should pay. If that happened more often, perhaps we'd see fewer such lawsuits. The only person responsible for the death of Mr. Grunow is the 13-year old creep that pulled the trigger.

 

[Hawkman]

Valor should go after everything she's got. It's a war, and they are the enemy.

 

[RangerHAAF]

Absolutely, she knew there was nothing to be gained by bringing a suit against Valor. They ought to make an example of her to other miscreants who would allow themselves to be knowingly used by lawyers that ultimately leave them holding the bag. I hope that S.659 passes soon so that anti-gun cretins will be shut up and shut out from the court system.

 

[Henry Bowman]

As usual, the reporter either didn't understand the story being reported or chose to withhold some information in order to make the story seem more sensational than it really is.

Valor is not suing or counter-suing Mrs. Grunow. Early in the case, Valor made an "offer of judgment." That means, they said, " we'll take jugment against us and give you $200K," if I recall correctly. The risk of the plaintiff turning it down is that if they don't recover more than the offer at trial, then they are liable for the defendant's costs from the date of the offer forward. An offer of judgment is more than a settlement offer. It would give the plaintiff a "win." This process in the law is to cause the plaintiff to seriously consider a legitimate offer and to create a downside for turning it down. It is to stop a plaintiff from pursuing a case maliciously just to cost the defendant lots of legal expenses, even though they know they have little chance of a win in the end.

Mrs. G (or her HCI handlers) wanted to make a point. It backfired. Hopfully Sarah Brady will write the check for her.

 

[Doug444]

"Hopfully Sarah Brady will write the check for her." Don't hold your breath, Henry. .

 

[seeker_two]

Drain her dry....

Then, when she's poor & living in the projects & needs a gun for self-defense, who will she turn to?...