We may receive a commission when you use our links. Monkey Miles is part of an affiliate sales network and receives compensation for sending traffic to partner sites, such as CreditCards.com and CardRatings. This relationship may impact how and where links appear on this site. This site does not include all financial companies or all available financial offers. Monkey Miles is also a Senior Advisor to Bilt Rewards. Terms apply to American Express benefits and offers. Enrollment may be required for select American Express benefits and offers. Visit americanexpress.com to learn more Opinions, reviews, analyses & recommendations are the author’s alone, and have not been reviewed, endorsed or approved by any of these entities.
58 people dead. Over 500 injured. And now, victims are getting sued. The tragic story of the worst mass shooting in American history has been void of information, wrapped in conspiracy, and now the latest development is an absolute jaw dropper: MGM, parent company of Mandalay Bay, will sue the 1000+ victims named in suits against them. I’m certainly no legal expert, and you can read an analysis on the New York Times here, but the long and short of the maneuver is to utilize a federal law known as the “Support Antiterrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies, or Safety, Act,” to absolve itself of liability and get any lawsuit thrown out. Arguably, MGM is facing an existential crisis, and focusing on one particular law as a way out.
The law was written to protect certified manufacturers of security equipment, or those who provide security services, if they’re unable to prevent a terrorist attack.
Currently there isn’t a case that establishes precedent for a situation whereby a security firm is certified by the DHS when an act of terrorism is committed – so this would have quite an impact on cases going forward. MGM asserts that it met two conditions and therefore qualifies for protection under the 2002 law:
- The security company, Contemporary Services Corporation, holds a certificate from the DHS
- The company’s perspective on the shooting is that it qualifies as an “act of terrorism.”
I was surprised to discover that the 2nd condition, declaration of an “act of terrorism,” is something that hasn’t been publicly declared by the DHS. But, apparently, that is the case.
One of the victims’ lawyers, Craig Eiland thinks the move by MGM is not only outrageous, but represents a dangerous trajectory for the courts to establish. He says,
“Their theory is that this security company goes to D.H.S. and gets some type of certificate, and so now MGM is immune, and everybody in the future who hires the company is immune…It’s outrageous, and that’s not what the law is, and we would all be less safe.”
Sadly, closure for victims and their families won’t be anytime soon.
Opinions, reviews, analyses & recommendations are the author’s alone, and have not been reviewed, endorsed or approved by any of these entities.
The responses below are not provided or commissioned by the bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved, or otherwise endorsed by the bank advertiser. It is not the bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.