Re: Law Suit in NJ

["news.comcast.net" <acoutinhobass@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I spent a little time trying to get some info on this.  I didn't find the NJ
statute in question but I did find some interesting related stuff.  It seems
that in 2003 the USSC found that AT&T's limitation of liability clause
violated California state law.  I wonder how extensive is that decision's
reach.

--
Regards,
Robert L Bass

========================>
Bass Home Electronics
Online DIY Alarm & Automation Store
941-866-1100
www.BassBurglarAlarms.com
=========================>






"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:40a5b5b36d3af22c9bd45f3ecbc0fe02@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Bob Worthy said:
>
>>Does anyone have information on a law suit that went against a New Jersey
>>alarm contractor recently, where the court awarded the plantiff 4.5
>>million
>>dollars. The NBFAA is going all out to raise money, from across the
>>country,
>>to file some sort of appeal. Kind of strange they would support a single
>>company so aggressively, especially financially. Could it be that this
>>contractor bought his insurance through the NBFAA insurance program?
>
> All I know is what the NBFAA president had to say on their website:
>
> http://www.alarm.org/info_ctr/amicus/gunning_ltr_amicus_brief.pdf
>
> A New Jersey trial court ruled that the llimitation of liability  and
> indemnification clauses in alarm contracts are unenforceable under New
> Jersey law.  I'm guessing this will get reversed on appeal, but that costs
> money.  Appealing the case also gives a higher court the opportunity to
> declare this really is the law in New Jersey.  So, it's four and a half
> million dollars worth of serious.
>
> - badenov
>