King Risk Partners announced it has acquired the independent insurance agency Norton and Siegel in New York.
Established in Babylon Village on the South Shore of Long Island in 1892, Norton and Siegel is a multigenerational agency offering personal and commercial lines.
Agency owner Aaron Stein said that joining King Risk Partners allows his agency to access additional resources, carrier relationships, and capabilities. “Most importantly, our clients will continue working with the local professionals they know and trust while benefiting from the strength of a broader organization,” Stein stated.
Headquartered in Gainesville, Florida, King Risk Partners now has more than 50 locations on the Eastern seaboard from New Hampshire to Florida, including six in each of the states of Massachusetts, New York and Connecticut.
The nine-person federal district court jury ruled unanimously that the police detective failed to prove there were defects in the manufacture or design of the firearm and found no negligence on the part of Sig Sauer.
Sig Sauer has faced multiple similar lawsuits alleging unintentional discharge but has maintained the gun meets all safety standards. Sig Sauer markets the P320 primarily to law enforcement and military personnel.
“The jury’s unanimous verdict in Maine federal court is an important outcome because it further validates the engineering and design of the P320 and the extensive independent testing behind it,” said Kristen Dennison, counsel for Sig Sauer.
While it still faces lawsuits, the gunmaker has notched a few wins recently. Last month, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a class-action lawsuit targeting the P320. Also, in May, plaintiffs in Connecticut and Massachusetts voluntarily withdrew their complaints.
In past cases, separate juries in Georgia and Pennsylvania sided with injured plaintiffs and awarded multi-million-dollar payouts.
Also the state of New Jersey has filed a consumer fraud lawsuit against Sig Sauer seeking to force a recall.
As part of its defense Sig Sauer has argued that the design, manufacture, packaging, warning and labeling of the handgun were in “conformity with the generally recognized state of the art, practice, custom, and knowledge at the time such product was designed, manufactured, packaged and labeled.”
However, Sig Sauer also argued, if there if there was any defect or deficiency, such defect or deficiency did not relate to SIG, but was the result of acts or omissions on the part of others for whom SIG is not responsible including negligent or faulty maintenance, handling, use, or alteration.