Sig Sauer’s $11 Million Misfire: What Gun Owners Need to Know

Last reviewed: October 2026.

Key Takeaways (updated October 14, 2026)

• The Sig Sauer P320 is the pistol at the center of the uncommanded-discharge litigation: 150+ alleged unintentional discharges and, by plaintiffs’ counsel’s count, 125+ claimants from 45 states.
• The verdict record is now split. Plaintiffs won in Georgia ($2.35M, Lang, 2024; Sig Sauer’s appeal is still pending in the Eleventh Circuit) and Philadelphia (Abrahams, November 2024, but the $10M punitive award was vacated in June 2025, leaving $1M). Sig Sauer won a defense verdict in Maine on August 7, 2026 (Cole), the first jury rejection of the holstered-discharge theory; the Coles moved for a new trial on September 8, 2026.
• A Massachusetts jury found the P320 defectively designed in July 2025 (Desrosiers) but awarded $0 because the officer kept carrying it knowing of the defect.
• The Missouri consumer class action was thrown out on July 16, 2026: the Eighth Circuit held a buyer whose pistol never misfired has no standing (Glasscock).
• New York matters most for our readers: on May 28, 2026 the Second Circuit revived Colwell v. Sig Sauer, a Troy police sergeant’s holster-discharge case, holding a New York jury may find a design defect without expert causation testimony. Trial is set for November 16, 2026 in Albany.
• The P365 now has its own cases. In Harvard v. Sig Sauer (N.D. Ga.) a federal judge refused on August 7, 2026 to dismiss a P365X design-defect claim on Second Amendment grounds, at the pleading stage. A holstered-P365 suit was filed in Orlando federal court in July 2026.
• No recall, no MDL. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s October 1, 2026 list of pending MDLs includes no P320 or P365 docket. New Hampshire (Sig Sauer’s home state) passed a 2025 law barring defect claims based on the absence of an external safety; New York has no such law.
• These cases are won or lost on the pistol itself. Courts have thrown out P320 claims where the plaintiff’s experts did not test the actual pistol or could not say what touched the trigger. If yours fired on its own, preserve the evidence before anything else.
• New York statute of limitations: 3 years from injury under CPLR §214; 2 years for wrongful death under EPTL §5-4.1.
• If you were injured by a P320 that fired without a trigger pull, you may qualify for a product liability claim. Free consultation: (516) 750-0595.

If you own a Sig Sauer P320 and it fired without a trigger pull, you may be entitled to compensation. A Philadelphia jury awarded $11 million to a U.S. Army veteran whose holstered P320 discharged, an award the trial court later cut to $1 million by vacating the punitive damages, and more than 125 people have since brought similar claims. Juries have now gone both ways: Georgia, Philadelphia and a Massachusetts jury found the design defective; New Hampshire (2022) and Maine (August 2026) juries sided with Sig Sauer. Here is what a New York owner needs to know.

Which Sig Sauer misfires? The P320

The Sig Sauer P320 is the model at the center of the uncommanded-discharge lawsuits: the striker-fired pistol (and its X-Series variants) that owners say has fired while holstered, when dropped, or when bumped, with no finger on the trigger. That is what “misfire without a trigger pull” means in these cases: not a dud round or a jam, but a live discharge with the trigger untouched. A Philadelphia jury awarded $11 million on exactly that theory in Abrahams v. Sig Sauer (November 2024), and more than 120 similar federal suits are pending.

As of September 2026, more than 150 people have alleged the P320 fired without a trigger pull, and plaintiffs’ counsel count 125+ claimants across 45 states. The verdict record is split: plaintiffs’ verdicts in Georgia ($2.35M, 2024, on appeal) and Philadelphia (2024, reduced from $11M to $1M in June 2025), a Massachusetts defect finding with no damages (July 2025), and defense verdicts in New Hampshire (2022) and Maine (August 7, 2026). The Missouri consumer class certified in 2025 was vacated on appeal in July 2026. The civilian P320 lacks the external thumb safety found on the military M17/M18 (the design choice at the heart of every one of these cases), and for New York owners the case to watch is Colwell v. Sig Sauer, revived by the Second Circuit in May 2026 and set for trial in Albany on November 16, 2026.

P320 Misfire Defect: When Safety Mechanisms Fail

Firearms should protect and empower people who use them. But sometimes a trusted gun like the Sig Sauer P320 fires without warning. That happened to U.S. Army veteran George Abrahams. A jury in Philadelphia just handed him $11 million after his holstered pistol shot through his thigh, leaving permanent damage. It’s a harsh lesson in how small manufacturing slips can wreck lives. According to an AP report, the suit alleged the gun fired without the trigger being pulled.

This verdict follows a $2.35 million award in Georgia earlier this year, a verdict the trial judge upheld in February 2025 by denying Sig Sauer’s request for a new trial; Sig Sauer’s appeal to the Eleventh Circuit is still pending. Both cases spotlight problems with Sig Sauer’s popular handgun. Plaintiffs say it discharges accidentally, even though the company insists on tough safety tests. And these aren’t isolated events; they highlight key ideas in product liability. Defects or weak safeguards put users at risk. People often need sharp lawyers to fight back and win justice.

The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. handles tough personal injury and product liability cases like these. The firm holds manufacturers responsible. Call (516) 750-0595 to talk about what happened to you.

What makes a case like this so compelling? It shows how everyday items can turn deadly. Abrahams thought his gun was safe. Then it wasn’t.

P320 Fires Without Trigger: What Really Happened

Picture this: George Abrahams heads down some stairs. His Sig Sauer P320 sits holstered in his athletic pants pocket. Suddenly, the gun fires on its own. The bullet rips through his right thigh and comes out above the knee.

Court records paint a grim picture. This random shot caused lasting harm. A simple walk turned into a nightmare, exposing what critics call design flaws in the pistol.

Misfires aren’t like other gun problems: no jams or stuck casings here. This means the gun goes off without anyone pulling the trigger on purpose. Movement or pressure might set it off. That’s different from mistakes users make. The issue of potential accidental discharge has been a point of contention for the Sig Sauer P320.

Sig Sauer fights back hard. Company reps call the P320 one of the most dependable handguns out there. They pointed fingers at Abrahams’ handling. But the jury didn’t buy it. They ruled Sig Sauer sold a faulty product and holster, plain and simple.

Details on any settlement beyond the verdict? Scarce so far. Yet this case echoes more than 120 similar complaints across the country. People demand recalls and fixes. Sig Sauer plans to appeal, of course.

It’s frustrating, isn’t it? A company stands by its product, but juries keep siding with victims. Makes you wonder about trust in big manufacturers.

One short note: These incidents often start small. A bump, a twist, and boom. Life changes forever.

Injured by a firearm that discharged without a trigger pull? You may have a defective product claim. The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. fights for victims of dangerous firearms and other defective products. Call (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.

Can You Sue Sig Sauer? Product Liability Basics

Product liability laws protect consumers. They make manufacturers pay when defective goods hurt people. In many places, strict liability applies. That means victims just prove the product was dangerously flawed and caused the injury. No need to dig into the company’s mistakes or intentions.

Three main ways to claim liability stand out. First, manufacturing defects. That’s when a product comes off the line wrong, not matching the plans. Second, design defects. Here, the blueprint itself has problems, making the item unsafe no matter how well it’s built.

Third? Failure to warn. Companies skip proper labels or instructions about risks they know about.

Firearms get tricky. Courts see them as inherently risky; you can’t make a gun completely safe. Still, laws apply. Judges look closely at safety features. Take the P320: Military versions have external safeties. Civilian ones don’t. That gap raises questions about preventing accidents.

Plaintiffs carry the proof load. They show the defect was there from the factory and directly led to the harm. With guns, defendants might argue users knew the risks. Assumption of risk comes up a lot.

But here’s a twist: even with that defense, strong evidence wins out. Experts help a ton. They dissect designs, test failures, and explain to juries why something went wrong.

Think about it: Why do some guns have more safeties than others? Cost-cutting? Oversight? Cases like Abrahams’ force answers.

Expanding on this, let’s consider how these laws play out in real life. Say someone buys a car with bad brakes. The maker knew but didn’t fix it. Liability kicks in. Same with guns. If a design invites accidents, courts step up.

And product recalls? They happen when patterns emerge. The Sig Sauer issues have sparked talks of one. But companies drag their feet. Victims push through lawsuits to force change.

A quick aside (because it’s worth noting): Not every defect is obvious. Some hide in plain sight, like a trigger too sensitive to jostling.

Sig Sauer Settlement Amounts and Compensation

Shifting gears a bit, what about compensation? Verdicts like $11 million cover medical bills, lost wages, pain. But they also send messages. Manufacturers notice big payouts. They rethink designs.

Of course, not all cases win. Juries weigh evidence carefully. Plaintiffs need solid stories, backed by facts. Weak links break chains.

Still, progress happens. Laws evolve with technology. New gun designs incorporate better tech, such as biometric locks or smarter triggers. But until then, incidents like this remind everyone to stay vigilant.

One more thing: States differ on these laws. Some lean strict, others require more proof of negligence. Know your local rules. It matters.

Wrapping back to Abrahams: his win builds on others. It pressures Sig Sauer. More suits could follow, each chipping away at denials.

Deeper Dive into Firearm Liability

Firearms aren’t just any product. Their dangers demand extra care from makers. Yet slip-ups occur. The P320 saga illustrates that.

Critics point to the lack of a manual safety in civilian models. Soldiers get one; why not everyone? Sig Sauer says the gun’s internal mechanisms suffice. Juries disagree.

Expert witnesses play key roles. They test guns, recreate scenarios. In Abrahams’ trial, they likely showed how a holstered pistol could fire from impact or movement.

And the holster? Sig Sauer sold it too. If it didn’t secure the gun properly, that’s another defect layer.

Broader picture: Over 120 lawsuits allege similar misfires. Some settled quietly. Others head to court. Patterns like this often lead to class actions or mass torts.

What drives these claims? Partly, the P320’s popularity. Law enforcement uses it widely. When issues hit pros, civilians take note.

Sig Sauer upgraded the design in 2017, adding a trigger pull upgrade program. Voluntary, though. Not everyone participated. Questions linger: Was it enough?

A mild contradiction here: the company touts safety, yet pays out millions. Actions speak louder.

For gun owners, this raises practical tips. Inspect gear regularly. Choose holsters that fit snugly. Train properly. But even then, defects lurk.

Legal side: File claims quickly. Statutes of limitations apply. Evidence fades.

The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. guides clients through this maze. The firm gathers experts, builds cases, fights for fair outcomes. Reach out at (516) 750-0595.

Timeline: The Sig Sauer P320 Crisis

The P320’s problems didn’t start overnight. Here is a timeline of incidents, lawsuits, and responses stretching back nearly a decade.

Were you or a loved one injured by a Sig Sauer P320 or any firearm that discharged without a trigger pull? The clock is ticking. The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. handles product liability and defective firearm claims across Long Island and New York. Call (516) 750-0595 for a free case review.

2025 to 2026: a split record and a New York trial date

The P320 litigation shifted in 2025 and 2026, and not in one direction. What started as individual injury claims has evolved into a multi-front legal assault, with class actions, consolidated proceedings, and investigative bombshells piling pressure on Sig Sauer.

September 2026: Sig Sauer wins in Maine, and what it does and doesn’t mean

On August 7, 2026, a nine-person federal jury in Bangor, Maine returned a verdict for Sig Sauer in Cole v. Sig Sauer, Inc. (D. Me., No. 1:23-cv-00327). Somerset County Sheriff’s detective David Cole alleged that on May 4, 2022 his holstered duty P320 fired while he was executing a search warrant, sending a round through his right thigh and calf into his ankle. After nine trial days, the jury answered “no” to both strict liability (design defect or inadequate warning) and negligence; the damages and punitive questions were never reached. Judgment was entered August 10. Sig Sauer’s counsel called the verdict a validation of “the engineering and design of the P320 and the extensive independent testing behind it.”

Three things a New York owner should take from it:

1. It is one jury, on one record. Before trial the court excluded evidence of the 2017 Voluntary Upgrade Program and, in general, evidence that police agencies have banned the pistol. Juries in Georgia, Philadelphia and Massachusetts, who heard broader records, found the design defective. Jury verdicts do not make law; they decide a case.
2. It is not final. The Coles filed a motion for a new trial on September 8, 2026, and no ruling on it appears on the public docket as of October 14, 2026. An appeal to the First Circuit remains available.
3. It changes nothing about New York law. The Second Circuit’s May 2026 decision in Colwell, discussed below, is the ruling that governs how a P320 case is tried here, and it went the other way.

The honest scoreboard after Maine: two plaintiffs’ verdicts (Georgia and Philadelphia), one defect finding with no damages (Massachusetts), two defense verdicts (New Hampshire in 2022 and Maine in 2026), and roughly twenty cases Sig Sauer has had dismissed, including several where the officer ultimately conceded the trigger was pulled. Sig Sauer’s position has not moved: “The P320 cannot, under any circumstances, discharge without a trigger pull.” The plaintiffs’ bar has not moved either: more than 125 claimants are on file.

The Philadelphia Verdict Today: $1 Million, Not $11 Million

This article’s headline dates from the November 2024 Abrahams verdict: $1 million in compensatory damages plus $10 million in punitive damages against Sig Sauer for a holstered P320 that fired into a veteran’s leg. On June 17, 2025, the trial judge vacated the $10 million punitive award, leaving the $1 million compensatory verdict standing. Sig Sauer has said it will seek dismissal of the remainder. The Georgia verdict (Lang, $2.35 million, upheld against a new-trial motion in February 2025) is on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, with no decision as of this update. We have corrected every figure in this article accordingly.

Desrosiers: A Defect Finding Worth $0

On July 30, 2025, a federal jury in Boston found the P320 defectively designed and that the defect caused Cambridge police officer Timothy Desrosiers’ injury, then awarded nothing, finding he “voluntarily and unreasonably” kept using the pistol knowing of the defect. Final judgment for Sig Sauer, including on the consumer-protection claim, entered September 9, 2026. The lesson for owners is blunt: once you know of the problem, keep carrying the pistol at your own legal risk. Assumption of the risk is a live defense, and it can zero out a winning liability case.

New York: the Second Circuit revives Colwell, trial November 16, 2026

The most important development for our readers is a New York case. Troy Police Sergeant Michael Colwell’s department-issued P320 fired in its holster during a June 2021 training exercise, striking his right leg. The Northern District of New York excluded his experts’ causation opinions and granted Sig Sauer summary judgment. On May 28, 2026, the Second Circuit reversed (Judge Lynch, joined by Judge Leval; Judge Sullivan dissenting). The court held that under Voss v. Black & Decker New York does not always require expert causation testimony in a design-defect case: a jury may combine the unchallenged design-defect opinions with its own examination of the P320 and the holster. The court also refused to let Sig Sauer win on the Scarangella optional-equipment doctrine, because Sig Sauer identified no normal use of the P320 that avoids the alleged defect. On remand, the case is set for a firm trial date of November 16, 2026 in Albany.

Two other New York dockets are worth knowing: Jinn v. Sig Sauer (S.D.N.Y.), a federal agent’s Bronx range injury, ended in summary judgment for Sig Sauer in 2023; and Farrell v. Sig Sauer (E.D.N.Y., filed October 2025) is pending in Brooklyn.

The New Hampshire immunity law and why it doesn’t reach New York

Sig Sauer is headquartered in New Hampshire, and on May 23, 2025 Governor Ayotte signed HB 551, which bars any product-liability claim (design defect, failure to warn, negligence or strict liability) premised on a firearm’s lack of a magazine disconnect, loaded-chamber indicator, authorized-user technology, or external mechanical safety, including a tabbed trigger. Manufacturing-defect and express-warranty claims survive, and the law is prospective only. Plaintiffs’ counsel responded by refiling 34 claimants from 23 states in Pennsylvania in November 2025. Copycat bills in Florida and Georgia died in 2026. New York has no such statute. P320 cases here proceed under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act’s product-defect exception (15 U.S.C. §7903(5)(A)(v)) and New York’s Voss risk-utility test.

Agencies and the military, 2025 to 2026

ICE barred the P320 for its officers in July 2025; Houston Police pulled it for roughly 1,200 officers in August 2025; Chicago, Denver, Milwaukee, Dallas, SEPTA and San Francisco had restricted or phased it out earlier. Washington State’s police academy banned it permanently in February 2025, and Sig Sauer sued the academy in July 2025. New Jersey’s Attorney General sued Sig Sauer in October 2025 seeking a recall, citing a police lieutenant’s 2023 death. On the other side of the ledger, after the July 2025 death of an airman at F.E. Warren Air Force Base (which courts-martial later attributed to another airman pointing the pistol and pulling the trigger), Air Force Global Strike Command inspected its 7,970 M18s, found 191 with discrepancies such as component wear (often on safety levers, striker assemblies or sears), and resumed use on August 25, 2025 under new inspection rules. In August 2026 the Department of War declared the M17/M18 “safe and reliable”; Sig Sauer says that review covered 113,479 pistols. The distinction the article has always drawn holds: the military pistols carry an external thumb safety; the standard civilian P320 does not.

Missouri’s Class Action: Certified in 2025, Thrown Out in 2026

On July 28, 2025, U.S. District Judge Douglas Harpool certified the first statewide consumer class action against Sig Sauer in Glasscock v. Sig Sauer, Inc. (Case 6:22-cv-03095-MDH). The certified class includes all Missouri purchasers of P320 pistols without an external thumb safety from September 2017 to the present.

It did not last. On July 16, 2026 the Eighth Circuit vacated the certification and ordered the case dismissed: the named plaintiff’s pistol had never misfired, so he had suffered no injury and had no Article III standing. The ruling is a real setback for consumer class actions by uninjured owners; it does not touch injury cases, which have always been fought one by one. Whether the Washington class action (Schreiber) survives the same standing analysis is the open question. Sig Sauer’s counsel said the ruling “adds to our approximately 20 case dismissals.” It had been a landmark: class certification meant Sig Sauer faced a single proceeding representing potentially thousands of Missouri gun owners, and the ruling could have served as a blueprint for class actions in other states.

Schreiber: the Washington class action survives dismissal

Schreiber v. Sig Sauer, Inc. (W.D. Wash., No. 2:25-cv-02303-JLR) was filed on November 17, 2025 by a Washington man who bought a P320 in November 2021 and says he read Sig Sauer’s website safety claims first. It is a proposed class action under the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and its theory is an omission: the website never disclosed that the pistol has no way to de-energize the striker with a round chambered and no external safety to stop the trigger from moving. On May 27, 2026, Judge James L. Robart denied Sig Sauer’s motion to dismiss. The court held that the complaint pleads an omission-based claim with the required particularity, that paying more for a pistol than it was worth is a cognizable economic injury under the Washington statute, and that the plaintiff may seek an injunction. That ruling came seven weeks before the Eighth Circuit’s Glasscock decision, so it does not answer whether a Washington buyer whose pistol never fired can clear the federal standing bar the Eighth Circuit applied. The case is a consumer case about what a buyer paid, not an injury case.

New Hampshire: injured plaintiffs from many states, tried in one court

Sig Sauer is headquartered in Newington, New Hampshire, and that is where several groups of injured owners have sued together. In Armendariz v. Sig Sauer (D.N.H., No. 1:22-cv-00536-JL), a consolidated case with more than 20 plaintiffs, the court denied Sig Sauer’s motion to sever the claims and transfer each one to the plaintiff’s home district on June 27, 2023 (2023 WL 4204666). The court reached the same result on June 17, 2025 in Currington v. Sig Sauer, a three-plaintiff case (2025 WL 1695427), and again on July 29, 2025 in Anderson v. Sig Sauer (No. 1:25-cv-00113-JL, 2025 DNH 084), where 22 P320 owners or users from 16 states and 17 spouses sued together. The court found that joinder would promote judicial efficiency by resolving related issues in a single lawsuit, and left the structure of any trial for later. The denials were without prejudice, so Sig Sauer may raise the issue again. New Hampshire’s 2025 immunity statute, discussed above, applies prospectively; plaintiffs’ counsel filed later claims in Pennsylvania after it passed.

What This Means for P320 Owners

If your P320 has injured you or a family member, nothing in the 2026 rulings changes your right to bring an individual claim. The Maine verdict decided one case, and the Eighth Circuit’s standing ruling concerns uninjured buyers. If you own a P320 that has not misfired, the Missouri decision means a federal consumer class claim for the pistol’s diminished value now faces a standing problem in the Eighth Circuit. Washington’s Schreiber case, which survived a motion to dismiss in May 2026, is the one consumer class still pending.

If you’re a P320 owner who has experienced an unintentional discharge or are concerned about your rights, consult with a personal injury attorney who handles product liability claims. The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. can help you understand your options: contact us or call (516) 750-0595.

The Georgia Verdict Survives Appeal

In February 2025, a federal judge upheld the $2.35 million verdict in the Robert Bryan Lang case, denying Sig Sauer’s request for a new trial. Sig Sauer had argued that gunsmith testimony should have been excluded. The court disagreed. Sig Sauer’s appeal to the Eleventh Circuit (Nos. 25-10810 and 25-10812) was fully briefed in early 2026 and remains undecided as of September 2026.

This matters because it signals that P320 design-defect claims can survive not just trial but post-trial challenges. For plaintiffs in pending cases, it reinforces that juries’ findings against Sig Sauer will hold up under appellate scrutiny.

The Trace Investigation: What Insiders Say About Sig Sauer

A February 2026 joint investigation by The Trace and Bloomberg Businessweek pulled back the curtain on Sig Sauer’s manufacturing culture. Insiders alleged that pressure to increase production led to shoddy manufacturing practices dating back to at least 2010, years before the P320 even launched.

The investigation documented quality control failures even on the P226 DAK during internal testing. The reporting painted a picture of a company where speed and volume were prioritized over precision.

The numbers continue to climb. As of the investigation’s publication, over 150 people have alleged unintentional P320 discharge, up significantly from previously reported figures. In 2025 alone, 18 additional injuries were reported, including three ICE agents wounded by their duty-issued P320s. A Pennsylvania father was killed by an alleged unintentional P320 discharge.

These insider revelations could prove devastating in ongoing litigation. Evidence that a manufacturer knew about systemic quality problems across multiple product lines, and continued pushing production is exactly the kind of evidence that supports punitive damages.

Military Developments: The M17/M18 Paradox

The military’s relationship with the P320 platform remains complicated. After Airman Brayden Lovan was fatally shot with an M18 at F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming on July 20, 2025, Air Force Global Strike Command suspended M18 use and inspected its entire inventory of 7,970 pistols. It found 191 with discrepancies such as component wear, often on safety levers, striker assemblies or sears, and resumed using the M18 on August 25, 2025 with new inspection rules.

Then in November 2025, the U.S. Army approved a general forces configuration with modular accessories for the M17/M18, signaling continued institutional investment in the platform.

The paradox is hard to miss: the military keeps doubling down on the P320 while civilian courts keep finding it defective. The difference? Military M17/M18 variants include an external thumb safety that civilian P320s lack, the very feature at the heart of most lawsuits.

The P365: a smaller docket of its own

For years the uncommanded-discharge litigation was a P320 story. Three cases have now involved the smaller P365, also a striker-fired pistol.

Harvard v. Sig Sauer, Inc. (N.D. Ga., No. 1:25-cv-06891-TWT) alleges that a P365X with no manual safety fired while still fully seated in its holster, which the owner was holding after taking it off his belt at a hunting club in Roberta, Georgia, and that the round injured his right index finger. Sig Sauer moved to dismiss the design-defect and negligence counts on a new theory: that under the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, treating the lack of an external safety as a design defect would amount to a judge-made ban on striker-fired pistols without one, in violation of the Second Amendment. On August 7, 2026, Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. denied the motion. Read as pleaded, the complaint alleges a defect in internal components specific to the P365X, not a rule that every handgun needs an external safety, so the claims “do not invoke Second Amendment protections.” The court was explicit that Sig Sauer may raise the argument again after discovery if the only defect left in the case is the missing manual safety. The ruling therefore keeps a design-defect claim alive; it does not decide the constitutional question for good.

De Souza v. Sig Sauer, Inc. (M.D. Fla., No. 6:26-cv-01571) was filed in Orlando in July 2026. The complaint alleges that on November 5, 2024 the plaintiff’s P365 fired while holstered on his right hip as he sat down. Sig Sauer answered the complaint on September 25, 2026.

The New York P365 case ended without a ruling on the merits. In Ashe v. Sig Sauer, Inc. (N.D.N.Y., No. 1:23-cv-01281), a City of Troy plain-clothes officer alleged that on October 14, 2020 his department-issued P365, carried in an inside-the-waistband holster, fired as he pulled up his pants in the police station restroom and injured his right leg. His lawyers withdrew in October 2025, the plaintiffs did not appear or take part in discovery, and on January 9, 2026 Judge Glenn T. Suddaby dismissed the case for failure to prosecute. The order gave the plaintiffs thirty days to refile through new counsel before the dismissal became one with prejudice, and the docket shows a judgment entered February 24, 2026. A claim that is filed and then left alone ends the same way a weak one does.

Why P320 cases are won or lost

The verdicts get the headlines. The dismissals explain the litigation. Several of Sig Sauer’s pretrial wins came from excluding the plaintiff’s expert, and in those rulings the court asked the same question: did the expert work from the actual pistol and the actual facts, or from exemplars and assumptions? Others ended when the plaintiff’s own account changed.

• Herman v. Sig Sauer (10th Cir., No. 23-6136, June 13, 2025). An Oklahoma owner’s P320 fired as he pulled an appendix holster out of his waistband. The district court excluded both of his experts and granted summary judgment, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished order and judgment. Neither expert knew what part of the trigger had been touched, or whether the owner would have engaged a thumb safety if the pistol had one, so their opinions that a manual safety would have prevented the discharge were speculation. One of the two had not examined the owner’s pistol at all. Without the experts, the court held, there was no evidence of causation.
• Frankenberry v. Sig Sauer (D.S.C., No. 4:19-cv-02990, February 4, 2022). A retired New York City police officer said his P320 fired into his leg as he left a restaurant restroom stall in South Carolina. His expert had only visually inspected the pistol and three other “exemplar” P320s, had done no testing to confirm his opinions, and had not measured the “rollover” (excess material on a part) that he blamed. The court excluded the expert and granted Sig Sauer summary judgment.
• Green-Berrios v. Sig Sauer (D.P.R., No. 3:22-cv-01002). After about three years of litigation, the plaintiff moved to dismiss his own case with prejudice, stating in the motion that his P320 “has no defects” and “does not discharge without a trigger pull.” Judgment dismissing the case with prejudice was entered March 11, 2025.
• Jordan v. Sig Sauer (State Court of DeKalb County, Georgia). According to Sig Sauer’s September 1, 2026 statement, the court dismissed all claims with prejudice on August 26, 2026 after the officer whose pistol fired admitted in a deposition that he had inadvertently pulled the trigger, and the plaintiff filed no expert reports and did not oppose the motion. We have not seen the court’s order; that account is Sig Sauer’s.

The other side of the record runs the same way. The Third Circuit revived Slatowski in August 2025 because the trial court had wrongly excluded the plaintiff’s experts, and in Colwell the Second Circuit held that a New York jury may find a design defect without expert causation testimony, by examining the P320 and the holster itself alongside the unchallenged design-defect opinions. Either way, the physical pistol and holster are the evidence. Consequently, what an injured owner does with them in the first days after a discharge can decide the case before any expert is hired.

If your P320 or P365 fires on its own: preserve the evidence

This section is general information, not legal advice about your situation. The steps below follow from the cases above, where the condition of the pistol and holster, and what the experts could say about them, decided the outcome.

Bring three things to the first call: the property receipt or a photograph of the pistol showing its serial number, the holster make and model, and your first medical record.

Lessons from the Case

This verdict isn’t just about one man. It spotlights systemic issues in product safety.

Manufacturers must prioritize users over profits. When they don’t, courts intervene.

For victims, hope exists. Skilled representation turns tragedies into triumphs.

But prevention beats cure. Push for better standards. Demand accountability.

In the end, cases like Abrahams’ reshape industries. They save lives down the line.

One final thought: Guns empower, but flaws endanger. Stay informed, stay safe.

Injured by a Defective Firearm? Get Help Now.

If you or a loved one has been hurt by a Sig Sauer P320 or any firearm that discharged without a trigger pull, you don’t have to fight the manufacturer alone. The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. has the experience to take on major manufacturers and hold them accountable for defective products that cause serious injuries.

Our firm handles Long Island product liability cases and broader personal injury claims across Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Use our settlement calculator to get a preliminary estimate of what your case may be worth based on injury type and severity.

Statutes of limitations apply. The sooner you act, the stronger your case. Evidence can degrade and deadlines pass quickly.

Get your free case review today. Call the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. at (516) 750-0595 or contact us online to discuss your defective firearm injury claim. We serve clients across Long Island and New York.

Sources

Primary sources, updated October 14, 2026.

• Cole v. Sig Sauer, Inc., D. Me. No. 1:23-cv-00327: docket (CourtListener) · jury verdict form, Doc. 220 · judgment, Doc. 225 · Bangor Daily News, Aug. 7, 2026 · Insurance Journal, Aug. 17, 2026 (Sig Sauer statement)
• Colwell v. Sig Sauer, Inc., 2d Cir. Nos. 24-2724 / 24-3047, decided May 28, 2026: opinion (PDF)
• Glasscock v. Sig Sauer, 8th Cir. No. 25-2707, July 16, 2026: analysis · Sig Sauer release
• Abrahams v. Sig Sauer punitive award vacated, June 17, 2025: Sig Sauer release
• Desrosiers v. Sig Sauer, D. Mass., July 30, 2025 verdict: Union Leader
• Slatowski v. Sig Sauer, 3d Cir. No. 24-1639, Aug. 1, 2025: opinion
• Lang v. Sig Sauer, 11th Cir. appeal: docket
• New Hampshire HB 551 (2025): enrolled text
• New Jersey Attorney General v. Sig Sauer, Oct. 16, 2025: NJ OAG release
• Department of War M17/M18 review, Aug. 2026: Army Times
• Harvard v. Sig Sauer, Inc., N.D. Ga. No. 1:25-cv-06891-TWT, partial motion to dismiss denied Aug. 7, 2026 - docket (CourtListener) · opinion and order, Doc. 23
• De Souza v. Sig Sauer, Inc., M.D. Fla. No. 6:26-cv-01571 - docket (CourtListener) · complaint, Doc. 5
• Ashe v. Sig Sauer, Inc., N.D.N.Y. No. 1:23-cv-01281 - docket (CourtListener), including the Jan. 9, 2026 text order · complaint, Doc. 1
• Schreiber v. Sig Sauer, Inc., W.D. Wash. No. 2:25-cv-02303-JLR, motion to dismiss denied May 27, 2026 - docket (CourtListener) · order, Doc. 31 (PDF)
• Herman v. Sig Sauer, 10th Cir. No. 23-6136, June 13, 2025 - order and judgment
• Frankenberry v. Sig Sauer, D.S.C. No. 4:19-cv-02990, Feb. 4, 2022 - docket (CourtListener) · order, Doc. 79
• Green-Berrios v. Sig Sauer, D.P.R. No. 3:22-cv-01002 - docket (CourtListener) · motion for voluntary dismissal, Doc. 162 · judgment, Doc. 169
• Jordan v. Sig Sauer, State Court of DeKalb County (Ga.), dismissed Aug. 26, 2026 - Sig Sauer statement, Sept. 1, 2026 (as published by Soldier Systems)
• Anderson v. Sig Sauer, D.N.H. No. 1:25-cv-00113-JL, 2025 DNH 084 (July 29, 2025) - memorandum order · Armendariz v. Sig Sauer, D.N.H. No. 1:22-cv-00536-JL (June 27, 2023) - order
• Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, pending MDL dockets as of Oct. 1, 2026 - JPML list
• Air Force Global Strike Command M18 inspection (7,970 pistols, 191 with discrepancies; use resumed Aug. 25, 2025) - Military Times, Aug. 26, 2025

Further reading. Firearms expert Steve Wolf’s free guide to investigating and litigating SIG P320 and P365 cases (current through September 10, 2026) is a detailed working manual on the pistol’s mechanics, the docket and evidence preservation, written for lawyers on both sides. It is a secondary source: we checked each case we cite above against the court record or, where noted, a party’s public statement.

Related Legal Resources

For additional guidance on this topic, see:

• Long Island personal injury lawyer
• car accident lawyer
• settlement calculator
• Honda’s 880,000-vehicle subframe rust recall: New York owners’ rights
• Hyundai’s phantom-braking recall and who’s at fault in a rear-end crash

If you have a case involving these issues on Long Island or in the New York City metropolitan area, the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. offers free consultations. Call (516) 750-0595 or contact our office online.