Beretta USA Corp. makes shotguns and other firearms. The complaint for this class action alleges that some of these items have synthetic stocks or fore-ends that are inlaid with a rubber-like material. The complaint alleges that these inserts degrade over time and become sticky or tacky and make it more difficult for the firearms to be used as intended.
The class for this action is all US persons who bought any Beretta firearm with a synthetic stock and fore-end featuring a rubber molded insert, form 1999 through January 31, 2022.
Beretta is a major manufacturer of firearms, with some of its weapons costing more than a thousand dollars. The complaint reproduces an advertising image with a print overlay that speaks of its firearms as “works of art … the real thing … with a timeless appeal.”
Beretta claims the rubber inserts on the shotguns and other firearms improves them: “[W]e have redesigned the grip and fore-end to be even more ergonomic. Enlarged rubber molded inserts allow for greater grip-surface and minimize transmission of vibrations.”
But the complaint contends, “In truth, the degradation of the inserts diminishes the fit, handling, and feel of [Beretta’s] firearms.” This is because they degrade over time with normal and expected use.
The plaintiff in this case, Glenn Kornegay, owns a 12-gauge Beretta shotgun with rubber molded inserts, including a stock and fore-end with rubberized inlays. He uses the shotgun to hunt fowl. Despite using the shotgun in a normal manner, the complaint alleges, he “noticed that the rubber molded inserts of his Beretta firearm had degraded, becoming extremely sticky and chipping.”
The degradation is not just unattractive, the complaint alleges: It “has adversely affected [Kornegay’s] ability to use his Beretta firearm, because the sticky stock and fore-end was uncomfortable to hold, affecting his natural mounting technique and aim.”
According to the complaint, “the mounting, fit and ergonomics of shotgun usage is a matter of long practice and technique. The sticky stock and fore-end render the firearm nigh impossible to use [with] the long-practiced muscle memory to effectively mount the shotgun to [Kornegay’s] shoulder and cheek and then swing naturally on the moving target.”
It adds, “This manufacturing defect essentially destroys the economic value of [Kornegay’s] Beretta firearm.”
The complaint alleges, “[u]pon information and belief,” that Beretta is aware that the inserts degrade badly over time, but it continues to make and sell firearms with them without warning would-be customers that this may happen.
The causes of action include negligence or wantonness, breach of implied warranties, and unjust enrichment. It asks for declaratory relief, including for the company to stop selling firearms with these components until the defect has been corrected and that it recall or repair firearms sold with the rubberized stocks or fore-end inlays since 1999.
Article Type: LawsuitTopic: Consumer
Most Recent Case Event
Beretta Degrading “Sticky Stock” Firearms Complaint
January 31, 2022
Beretta USA Corp. makes shotguns and other firearms. The complaint for this class action alleges that some of these items have synthetic stocks or fore-ends that are inlaid with a rubber-like material. The complaint alleges that these inserts degrade over time and become sticky or tacky and make it more difficult for the firearms to be used as intended.
Beretta Degrading “Sticky Stock” Firearms ComplaintCase Event History
Beretta Degrading “Sticky Stock” Firearms Complaint
January 31, 2022
Beretta USA Corp. makes shotguns and other firearms. The complaint for this class action alleges that some of these items have synthetic stocks or fore-ends that are inlaid with a rubber-like material. The complaint alleges that these inserts degrade over time and become sticky or tacky and make it more difficult for the firearms to be used as intended.
Beretta Degrading “Sticky Stock” Firearms Complaint