Re: question about VOIP and liability

["Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Jim Rojas" <jrojas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:qFFHg.8888$Tg1.1744@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> I understand what you are saying. But even with POTS line, there is a huge
> security issue. This is why alarm companies have $250 limited liability
> clauses in their contracts.

Which is useless when there is proof of negligence. Believe me when I say
this since I have been involved as an expert witness, in Florida, Texas, and
Arizonia and seen the court system in action.

> Whether the transmission is by POTS, Radio, Cellular, NetworkIP, etc., the
> customer is ultimately responsible to make sure the method of transmission
> is working at ALL TIMES. Even POTS can be unreliable, depending how far
away
> you live from the nearest telco switch station.

I agree with you whole heartedly and there may be an assumed level of
reliability on using the POTS lines but there is to much floating around the
industry about the unreliability of VOIP and we still are will to connect to
it. Now what is the exposure to both the user and the company? That is why I
asked about direct communications with the insurers and what their feeling
are. They don't care about the technical pitfalls, they only care about
their exposure and that is where we get in trouble. It is alot easier to
decline when the insurance company won't insure it rather than trying to kid
ourselves that a waiver is somehow going to make everything ok.
>
>
>
> "Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:srFHg.16256$e9.6884@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >I am wondering if anyone has actually talked with your liability
insurance
> > underwriters about the pros and cons with this VOIP and security
> > communications issues. I know all of the techy types drewl all over new
> > technologies and how cool it is and how we can make it work and all
that.
> > Hell, give us enough parts and we'll build a helicopter out in the
parking
> > lot. I know there are waivers and disclaimers being  presented, signed
> > etc.
> > That is a step towards defending your company and you if your corporate
> > vail
> > can't be broken, ha ha. :o[  Even those written by attorneys aren't
worth
> > the paper they are written on in a high profile personal injury case
when
> > the company knowingly hooks up to something known to be unreliable and
> > thinks it is ok because we stuck something in the customers face and had
> > them sign it. The industry somehow needs to bring together the powers to
> > be,
> > manufacturers, insurance and attorneys, ANSI, approval labortories,
> > internet
> > providers, the bells, cable providers, etc. and come to some conclusions
> > about this soon. Why is the industry letting this technology speed pass
> > without getting on board? Do we really think waivers are all that is
> > necessary? I know this is wishful thinking, however, I feel that every
> > time
> > someone connects to this technology, right now, is simply another nail
in
> > their company's coffin. Have a serious talk with your insurance company
> > and/or the homeowners insurance company or the insurance company that is
> > carrying a multi million dollar policy on inventory for your customer
> > about
> > the pro's and con's of connecting to this new technology and see if they
> > will bless it. Chances are it won't be a problem as long as there are
alot
> > more dollars spent on additional coverage by you and your customer. At
> > this
> > time that is just an assumption but I would be interested to hear the
> > outcome of your conversations with your attorneys and insurance
companies
> > about this issue since I am more interested in protecting what I have
over
> > putting on that one account that is questionable.
> >
> >
>
>