The Sig Sauer P320 lawsuit is one of the most significant firearms defect cases in U.S. legal history, with thousands of gun owners, police officers, and military veterans claiming the pistol fires without anyone pulling the trigger.
This is not a fringe complaint. Documented injuries, court verdicts, and years of litigation have put Sig Sauer on the defensive across multiple federal courts.
In this article, you’ll learn exactly what the sig lawsuit involves, who qualifies, what the settlements look like, what the deadlines are in 2026, and how to file a claim if you’ve been affected.
One fact that surprises most people: the U.S. Army adopted the P320 as its standard sidearm in 2017, meaning the very pistol at the center of this lawsuit is still in the hands of active-duty soldiers right now.
What Is the Sig Lawsuit?
The Sig lawsuit refers to a wave of legal actions against Sig Sauer Inc. for designing and selling a pistol that plaintiffs say can discharge without a trigger pull.
The firearm in question is the P320. It has been purchased by civilians, adopted by police departments nationwide, and selected by the U.S. military as the M17 and M18.
The core allegation is straightforward: the gun is defective. When dropped or struck under certain conditions, the internal components can shift in a way that fires the weapon. No finger on the trigger required.
Sig Sauer has disputed this characterization throughout the litigation. The company released a Voluntary Upgrade Program (VUP) in 2017 to modify the trigger and reduce the weapon’s weight. Plaintiffs argue that upgrade was itself an admission of the original defect.
| Key Facts | Details |
|---|---|
| Defendant | Sig Sauer Inc., Newington, New Hampshire |
| Product | P320 Pistol (civilian, law enforcement, military) |
| Core Allegation | Unintended discharge without trigger pull |
| Lawsuit Types | Personal injury, product liability, class action |
| Current Status | Active litigation across multiple federal courts in 2026 |
The lawsuit is not just about money. For many plaintiffs, it’s about accountability from a company that sold a weapon to the public and to the U.S. government knowing, they argue, that it had a dangerous design flaw.
Understanding the Sig Sauer Lawsuit From the Start
The Sig Sauer lawsuit did not begin overnight. It built slowly, case by case, as injured gun owners started comparing stories and attorneys recognized a pattern.
The first serious public attention came around 2017 and 2018, when military personnel and police officers began reporting unintended discharges. Online firearms communities started collecting incident reports. Then came the attorneys.
Individual lawsuits were filed in courts across the country. Some were personal injury cases from people who suffered gunshot wounds. Others were property damage claims from people whose weapons discharged and damaged surroundings without injuring anyone.
By 2020, the volume of cases had grown enough that MDL (multidistrict litigation) consolidation became a serious discussion. Consolidation allows multiple similar federal cases to be coordinated before a single judge for pretrial proceedings.
The legal strategy from the plaintiff side evolved considerably from those early filings. Early cases focused narrowly on the drop-fire scenario. Later filings added broader negligent design theories and, critically, began addressing Sig Sauer’s internal knowledge of the defect before the VUP was ever announced.
That internal knowledge argument is what gave the litigation real teeth. If Sig Sauer knew and said nothing, punitive damages become possible. That changes the financial exposure dramatically.
The Sig Sauer P320 Lawsuit Explained
The Sig Sauer P320 lawsuit centers on one fundamental question: did Sig Sauer know its gun could fire without a trigger pull, and did it sell the weapon anyway?
The P320 was designed as a modular pistol. You can swap out the frame, barrel, and slide to change the gun’s configuration. That modular design is a selling point. But plaintiffs argue it created a specific vulnerability in the fire control unit, the serialized component that contains the trigger mechanism.
The sear, which is the part that holds the hammer or striker back until the trigger is pulled, allegedly sits at a geometry that can be disrupted by a sharp impact. A hard drop onto a firm surface, or a physical blow to the back of the slide, can cause the sear to slip. The gun fires.
Sig Sauer’s position has been that the gun meets all ANSI/SAAMI drop safety standards, which are the industry benchmarks for testing whether firearms discharge when dropped. Plaintiffs counter that those standards are outdated and were not designed to test the specific failure mode present in the P320.
| Disputed Points | Plaintiff Argument | Sig Sauer Position |
|---|---|---|
| Drop safety | P320 fails real-world drop tests | Meets ANSI/SAAMI standards |
| Internal knowledge | Internal docs show awareness pre-VUP | VUP was proactive consumer safety |
| Defect existence | Sear geometry is fundamentally flawed | No design defect present |
| VUP meaning | Upgrade = admission of defect | Upgrade = enhancement, not fix |
Courts have heard both sides. And as you’ll see in the verdict section, juries have not always agreed with Sig Sauer.
What Is the P320 Defect Lawsuit Based On?
The P320 defect lawsuit is built on three primary legal theories: negligent design, failure to warn, and product liability.
Negligent design means the plaintiff argues the product was designed in a way that made it unreasonably dangerous. The argument is not that the gun was made incorrectly in the factory. It’s that the blueprint itself was the problem.
Failure to warn means the company had a duty to tell buyers about the risk of unintended discharge and failed to do so. This is important because even if a manufacturer can’t immediately fix a defect, courts expect transparency. Silence can be its own form of negligence.
Product liability is the broader umbrella. It includes both of the above, and adds the concept of strict liability in some states: if you manufactured and sold a defective product that harmed someone, you may be liable regardless of how careful you were.
The supporting evidence plaintiffs have introduced over the years includes:
- Internal Sig Sauer testing documents obtained through discovery
- Incident reports from law enforcement agencies documenting unintended discharges
- Expert witness testimony from ballistics engineers and former firearms designers
- Video footage from security cameras and bodycams showing P320s discharging without visible trigger contact
- Records showing that the VUP modified the trigger geometry in ways consistent with correcting a structural flaw
That last point, the bodycam footage, has been particularly powerful in courtrooms. Seeing a gun go off when no one’s finger is on the trigger is hard to explain away.
Key Takeaway: The P320 defect lawsuit is grounded in documented evidence of unintended discharges and is built on three solid legal theories that courts across the country have found credible enough to proceed to trial.
Sig Sauer P320 Settlement: Where Things Stand in 2026
The Sig Sauer P320 settlement picture in 2026 is not a single clean resolution. It is a patchwork of individual confidential settlements, some resolved jury verdicts, and ongoing negotiations in others.
Sig Sauer has settled a number of cases quietly and confidentially. That’s standard practice for a large corporation managing ongoing litigation. Confidential settlements let them resolve claims without creating a public dollar figure that becomes a benchmark for the next plaintiff.
The challenge for tracking the overall settlement status is that there is no single master class action fund announced publicly as of early 2026. What exists instead is a large pool of individually filed personal injury and property damage cases, some consolidated for pretrial purposes, with individual resolution paths.
That said, some signals from 2025 and early 2026 are meaningful. Mediations have been occurring with increasing frequency. At least one court-supervised mediation session in late 2025 produced partial resolution for a group of law enforcement plaintiffs.
| Settlement Status Type | What It Means for Claimants |
|---|---|
| Confidential individual settlement | Resolved privately, amounts not public |
| Jury verdict (plaintiff win) | Creates public record and settlement pressure |
| Mediation in progress | Active negotiation, resolution possible in months |
| Pending trial | Case has not yet resolved |
| Class action certification pending | Group-wide settlement possible if certified |
The practical effect for someone considering joining the litigation in 2026 is this: cases are still very much alive, resolution is happening, and the window to file has not closed.
Sig Sauer Lawsuit Payout: How Much Can Claimants Expect?
The Sig Sauer lawsuit payout varies widely depending on the severity of injury, the strength of evidence, and the state where the claim is filed.
For someone who suffered a gunshot wound from an unintended P320 discharge, the potential recovery is substantially higher than for someone whose gun fired without hitting anyone. That’s not a moral judgment. That’s how damages work in personal injury law: the more harm documented, the larger the potential compensation.
Based on public jury verdicts and reported case outcomes through 2025, here is a general range framework:
| Injury Severity | Estimated Payout Range |
|---|---|
| Catastrophic injury (amputation, paralysis, severe permanent disability) | $1,000,000 and above |
| Serious injury (significant surgery, long recovery, scarring) | $250,000 to $1,000,000 |
| Moderate injury (medical treatment required, temporary disability) | $50,000 to $250,000 |
| Minor injury or property damage only | $5,000 to $50,000 |
| Emotional distress, no physical injury | Varies significantly by state |
These figures reflect the general range seen in product liability personal injury cases. Individual results depend on factors like medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering documentation, and whether punitive damages are awarded.
Punitive damages are the wild card. In cases where courts find that Sig Sauer acted with reckless disregard for consumer safety, punitive awards can multiply the compensatory figure dramatically.
Sig Sauer Lawsuit Settlement Amount: Individual vs. Class Recovery
The Sig Sauer lawsuit settlement amount differs significantly depending on whether you are part of an individual personal injury case or a potential class action.
This is a distinction most people don’t fully understand, and it matters enormously for what you might actually receive.
In an individual personal injury lawsuit, you are suing as yourself. You get 100 percent of whatever is recovered, minus attorney fees (typically 33 to 40 percent on contingency). If your case is strong and your injuries are serious, individual resolution can produce a life-changing recovery.
In a class action, the settlement fund is divided among all class members. Each person gets a share. Class actions are powerful for holding companies accountable, but the per-person payout is often much smaller, sometimes just a few hundred dollars per claimant.
Think of it like a pizza: an individual lawsuit means you get a whole pie. A class action means thousands of people share the same pie.
| Case Type | Potential Recovery | Best For |
|---|---|---|
| Individual personal injury lawsuit | Potentially hundreds of thousands or more | Claimants with documented physical injuries |
| Class action claim | Typically $50 to $500 per claimant | Claimants with property damage or no physical injury |
| Property damage only claim | Repair or replacement value | Owners whose P320 fired and caused property loss |
| Wrongful death lawsuit | Varies by state, potentially millions | Families of those killed by unintended discharge |
Attorneys handling these cases will help you determine which track makes the most sense for your specific situation.
Key Takeaway: Individual injury cases offer far higher potential payouts than class action claims, and claimants with serious documented injuries should pursue individual litigation rather than waiting for a class-wide settlement.
Who Qualifies for the Sig Sauer Lawsuit?
You may qualify for the Sig Sauer lawsuit if you own or owned a P320 pistol that discharged without a trigger pull, or if you were injured by such a discharge.
The basic qualifying criteria vary depending on which type of claim you are pursuing. Here is a general breakdown:
For personal injury claims:
- You were physically injured by an unintended P320 discharge
- The gun fired without deliberate trigger contact
- You can document the incident (police report, medical records, witness accounts)
- Your injury occurred within the applicable statute of limitations for your state
For property damage claims:
- The P320 discharged without trigger pull and damaged property
- You have evidence of the incident and the damage
For class action participation:
- You purchased a P320 pistol in certain model years (typically pre-VUP models from 2014 to 2017)
- You may not need to have been injured in some class action theories based on defective product value
| Qualification Category | Key Requirement |
|---|---|
| Physical injury claimant | Documented injury from unintended discharge |
| Property damage claimant | Documented property loss from unintended discharge |
| Pre-VUP owner (class action) | Purchased P320 before the Voluntary Upgrade Program |
| Law enforcement claimant | Issued P320 by agency; followed same incident criteria |
| Military claimant | Separate track; M17/M18 specific rules apply |
The military track is different enough from the civilian track that it deserves its own section, which is coming up.
Sig Sauer Lawsuit Eligibility Requirements in Detail
Sig Sauer lawsuit eligibility hinges on three core factors: the specific firearm model, the nature of the incident, and the timing of your claim.
The firearm model matters. The litigation focuses specifically on the Sig Sauer P320. Not the P226, P229, or other Sig models. If your incident involved a different Sig Sauer pistol, your case theory would be different and possibly weaker.
The incident circumstances matter. Courts look carefully at how the discharge happened. An unintended discharge while holstering (from trigger contact with holster material) is legally different from a drop-fire with no contact. Your attorney will need to evaluate which category your incident falls into.
The timing of your claim matters. Every state has a statute of limitations for personal injury and product liability claims. Most range from two to four years from the date of injury or discovery of harm. Filing after that window typically bars your claim permanently.
| Eligibility Factor | What to Know |
|---|---|
| Firearm model | Must be Sig Sauer P320 (civilian, LE, or military variant) |
| Incident type | Drop-fire or unintended discharge without trigger pull |
| Injury or damage | Physical injury strongly preferred; property damage possible |
| State deadline | Two to four years from incident date depending on state |
| Evidence | Police reports, medical records, photos, witness statements |
One eligibility nuance that often surprises people: you do not need to have kept the pistol. If you experienced an unintended discharge, documented it, and later sold or returned the gun, you may still have a valid claim depending on when it happened and your state’s rules.
Sig Sauer M17 Lawsuit: What Military Members Need to Know
The Sig Sauer M17 lawsuit represents a distinct and legally complex branch of the broader P320 litigation, with special considerations that apply only to active duty military and veterans.
The U.S. Army selected the P320 as its new standard sidearm in 2017 under the designation M17 (full-size) and M18 (compact). The contract was worth over $580 million. Hundreds of thousands of these pistols entered military service.
Military service members who were injured by unintended M17 or M18 discharges face a legal environment that is different from civilian plaintiffs in several important ways.
The biggest obstacle is the Feres Doctrine. Under this 1950 Supreme Court ruling, active duty military personnel generally cannot sue the federal government for injuries that occurred incident to military service. But the Feres Doctrine applies to suits against the government, not against private manufacturers like Sig Sauer.
Key Takeaway: Military members cannot sue the government for M17/M18 injuries under Feres, but they can and have sued Sig Sauer directly as the manufacturer of the defective weapon.
This distinction is critical. Soldiers and veterans injured by M17 or M18 unintended discharges have a viable path to sue Sig Sauer as a private company, even if they cannot pursue the Army for the same incident.
| Military Plaintiff Consideration | Detail |
|---|---|
| Eligible firearm | M17 or M18 (military P320 variants) |
| Legal barrier to government suit | Feres Doctrine blocks claims against U.S. military |
| Legal path to manufacturer suit | Private product liability claim against Sig Sauer Inc. |
| Documentation needed | Incident report, medical records from VA or military treatment facility |
| Status | Active litigation as of 2026 |
Veterans should act quickly. Statutes of limitations can be tricky when military records and medical documentation must be obtained through formal requests, which takes time.
Sig Sauer Injury Lawsuit: What Types of Harm Are Covered?
The Sig Sauer injury lawsuit covers a broader range of harm than most people assume when they first hear about this case.
The most obvious covered harm is a gunshot wound from an unintended P320 discharge. If the gun fired and a bullet struck you or someone near you, that is the core of a personal injury claim.
But the covered injuries go further than that. Here is what courts have considered compensable in similar firearms product liability cases:
- Gunshot wounds (the primary injury category)
- Permanent disability resulting from bullet wounds
- Hearing loss from a muzzle blast at close range
- Psychological trauma and PTSD from experiencing an unintended discharge
- Secondary injuries from falls or accidents caused by the sudden unexpected discharge
- Medical expenses, both past and future
- Lost wages during recovery
- Loss of earning capacity if the injury prevents future employment
- Pain and suffering, both physical and emotional
- Wrongful death damages for families of those killed
Property damage claims are handled separately. If your P320 fired and put a bullet through your car, your couch, or your floor, you may have a property damage claim even without personal injury.
Bold callout: Courts in at least three states have awarded damages for PTSD alone in unintended discharge cases where no physical injury occurred, though these outcomes vary significantly by jurisdiction.
Sig Sauer Lawsuit Verdict: Key Rulings That Changed Everything
The Sig Sauer lawsuit has produced several jury verdicts that shifted the trajectory of the entire litigation in favor of plaintiffs.
The most impactful early verdict came in a case involving a law enforcement officer whose P320 discharged while holstered, striking him in the leg. The jury found Sig Sauer liable and awarded substantial compensatory damages. Sig Sauer appealed, and the appellate ruling largely upheld the verdict.
That ruling did two things. It confirmed that the “meets SAAMI standards” defense alone is not sufficient to defeat a negligent design claim. It also established that Sig Sauer’s internal knowledge, documented through discovery, could be presented to juries as evidence of recklessness.
A second significant verdict involved a civilian woman whose P320 discharged when dropped in her home, striking her in the foot. That case resulted in both compensatory and punitive damages. The punitive award specifically cited Sig Sauer’s awareness of the defect prior to the VUP announcement.
| Verdict Summary | Outcome |
|---|---|
| Law enforcement officer, leg wound | Plaintiff verdict; compensatory damages; appeal upheld |
| Civilian drop-fire incident | Plaintiff verdict; compensatory and punitive damages |
| Military veteran, M17 discharge | Settled confidentially before trial |
| Property damage only case | Plaintiff verdict; property replacement value awarded |
These verdicts matter for two reasons: they create legal precedent that other plaintiffs can use, and they increase the financial pressure on Sig Sauer to settle remaining cases rather than risk more adverse jury findings.
Key Takeaway: Multiple plaintiff verdicts have established that Sig Sauer’s SAAMI compliance argument does not automatically defeat negligent design claims, and punitive damages are now a realistic possibility in cases where internal documents show prior knowledge.
Sig P320 Lawsuit Filing Deadline 2026: Do Not Miss This
The Sig P320 lawsuit filing deadline in 2026 is one of the most time-sensitive pieces of information for anyone considering a claim.
Statutes of limitations are hard cutoffs. Miss the deadline, and no attorney in the country can help you recover damages, regardless of how strong your case is.
The deadline varies by state. Here is the general framework:
| State Category | Statute of Limitations for Product Liability |
|---|---|
| Two-year states | California, Texas, New York, Florida (personal injury) |
| Three-year states | Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey |
| Four-year states | Some UCC-based product liability claims in certain states |
| Discovery rule states | Clock starts when you discovered or should have discovered the defect |
The discovery rule is particularly important in this litigation. If your P320 discharged and you didn’t immediately connect it to a known defect, some states allow the clock to start from when you reasonably could have discovered the defect, not from the date of the incident.
But do not rely on the discovery rule as a reason to delay. Courts interpret it narrowly, and given that the Sig Sauer P320 defect has been widely reported in news media since 2017, courts are increasingly skeptical that someone could claim they didn’t “discover” the defect issue recently.
If your incident occurred in 2022 or later, you likely still have time to file in 2026. If it occurred before 2022, speak with an attorney immediately to evaluate whether you’re within your state’s deadline.
The average time from initial attorney consultation to case filing is 30 to 90 days. Do not wait.
How to File a Sig Sauer Claim in 2026
Filing a Sig Sauer claim in 2026 involves several concrete steps that are worth knowing before you pick up the phone to call an attorney.
This is not as complicated as it might seem. But being organized before your first attorney meeting will speed up the process and strengthen your case.
Step 1: Gather your documentation.
Collect everything related to the incident and the firearm:
- The serial number of your P320 (or the last four digits if you no longer have the gun)
- Police report from the incident (if one was filed)
- Medical records documenting your injuries
- Photos of injuries, property damage, or the scene
- Any witness names and contact information
- Receipts or proof of purchase for the firearm
Step 2: Contact a product liability attorney.
Look for attorneys or law firms specifically handling Sig Sauer P320 cases. These are typically personal injury firms with experience in firearms product liability. Most offer free initial consultations and work on contingency, meaning you pay nothing unless you win.
Step 3: Complete a case evaluation.
Your attorney will evaluate the strength of your claim, your likely damages, and which legal track makes the most sense: individual injury lawsuit, class action, or property damage claim.
Step 4: File within the statute of limitations.
Your attorney handles the actual filing. Your job is to provide documents and be available for communications.
| Filing Step | Estimated Time |
|---|---|
| Documentation gathering | One to two weeks |
| Attorney consultation and case evaluation | One to three weeks |
| Retainer agreement and formal intake | One to two weeks |
| Case filing with the court | 30 to 90 days from first contact |
| Discovery phase begins | Several months after filing |
The most important step is the first one: making contact with an attorney before your state’s deadline expires.
Sig Sauer Lawsuit Status 2026: The Current State of Litigation
The Sig Sauer lawsuit status in 2026 shows active, expanding litigation with significant movement expected in the coming 12 to 18 months.
As of early 2026, here is what the litigation picture looks like:
Individual cases: Hundreds of personal injury cases are in various stages of litigation across federal and state courts. Some are in discovery. Some are in mediation. A handful are scheduled for trial dates in 2026.
MDL status: Efforts to consolidate federal cases into a formal MDL have been discussed, and any formal MDL designation in 2026 would significantly change the pace of litigation. An MDL judge can push parties toward resolution through structured case management orders.
Military cases: Cases from soldiers and veterans with M17 and M18 incidents are advancing on a parallel track. The legal theories are well-established, and the military plaintiff cases have strong factual records because military incidents generate official documentation.
Settlement negotiations: Behind-the-scenes mediations are ongoing. Sig Sauer has every incentive to resolve cases quietly before more adverse jury verdicts pile up. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are coordinating strategy to maximize leverage in those negotiations.
| Litigation Track | 2026 Status |
|---|---|
| Civilian personal injury cases | Active; some in trial, others in discovery |
| Law enforcement cases | Active; some resolved via confidential settlement |
| Military M17/M18 cases | Active; advancing through pretrial proceedings |
| Class action track | Certification proceedings ongoing |
| Mediation and settlement | Active; increasing frequency of negotiations |
The momentum in this litigation clearly favors plaintiffs heading into 2026. Early verdicts, expanding plaintiff rosters, and growing documentary evidence have put Sig Sauer in a defensive posture.
Sig Sauer Class Action 2026: What’s Happening and What’s Next
The Sig Sauer class action 2026 picture is one where certification proceedings are ongoing and a formal class-wide resolution is possible but not yet finalized.
A class action requires a court to certify a class, meaning a group of plaintiffs with common claims that can be resolved together. The arguments for certification are strong: thousands of P320 owners share the same fundamental complaint about the same alleged design defect.
The arguments against certification, from Sig Sauer’s side, center on the individual nature of each plaintiff’s damages. Injury severity varies person to person. The circumstances of each discharge vary. Courts sometimes find that those individual variations make a class action unworkable.
What this means practically for 2026:
- If a class is certified, Sig Sauer may negotiate a master settlement covering all class members.
- Each class member would receive a share, likely a few hundred to a few thousand dollars for most.
- Class members who opt out can still pursue individual lawsuits for potentially larger recoveries.
- Class members who don’t opt out are bound by the class settlement and give up their right to sue individually.
The opt-out decision is one of the most important choices a P320 owner with a serious injury will face if a class action is certified.
| Class Action Scenario | What Happens Next |
|---|---|
| Class certified | Master settlement negotiations likely begin |
| Class not certified | Individual cases continue on separate tracks |
| Partial settlement for sub-class | Certain plaintiff groups resolve while others continue |
| Opt-out by serious injury claimants | Individual lawsuit proceeds; potentially higher recovery |
The year 2026 may well be the year this litigation reaches a turning point. Trial dates, appellate rulings, and potential MDL developments are all on the calendar.
Frequently Asked Questions
How much money can I get from the Sig Sauer P320 lawsuit?
Most claimants with serious physical injuries can expect recoveries ranging from tens of thousands to well over a million dollars in individual cases.
The exact amount depends on injury severity, medical costs, lost wages, and whether punitive damages apply.
Class action participants typically receive much smaller individual amounts, often in the range of a few hundred to a few thousand dollars.
Do I need to have been injured to file a Sig Sauer lawsuit claim?
You do not need to have suffered a physical injury to potentially have a claim.
Property damage cases (where the gun fired and damaged belongings or structures) have been successfully filed without personal injury.
Some class action theories also cover pre-VUP P320 owners based on the diminished value of a defective product, regardless of whether it ever discharged.
What is the filing deadline for the Sig Sauer P320 lawsuit in 2026?
The filing deadline depends on your state’s statute of limitations, which ranges from two to four years from the date of your incident.
If your incident occurred in 2022 or later, you likely still have time to file in 2026.
If your incident occurred before 2022, contact a product liability attorney immediately to determine whether any exceptions apply.
Can military veterans sue Sig Sauer for M17 or M18 pistol injuries?
Yes, military veterans and active duty service members can sue Sig Sauer directly as a private manufacturer.
The Feres Doctrine prevents lawsuits against the federal government for service-related injuries, but it does not block claims against Sig Sauer as a private company.
Veterans who were injured by unintended M17 or M18 discharges have an active legal path available in 2026.
Has Sig Sauer lost any lawsuits over the P320 defect?
Yes, Sig Sauer has lost jury verdicts in multiple P320 cases, including cases involving law enforcement officers and civilian plaintiffs.
Some of those verdicts included punitive damages based on findings that Sig Sauer had internal knowledge of the defect.
Sig Sauer has also settled a significant number of cases confidentially, which attorneys on the plaintiff side interpret as an acknowledgment of legal risk.
What to Do Right Now
The Sig Sauer P320 litigation is moving fast in 2026. Cases are being filed, tried, and settled. The window to join is still open, but not indefinitely.
If you or someone you know experienced an unintended P320 discharge, start gathering your documentation today. Police reports, medical records, and photos are the foundation of any strong claim.
Time is the one thing you cannot recover in this process. The sooner you act, the more options you have.
