Re: Law Suit in NJ

["Doug" <not@xxxxxxxx>]

If you really believe in what you are saying, why not remove the limitation
of liability clauses from your contracts

Doug



"Everywhere Man" <alarminstall@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1163142517.783044.220140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>> Everywhere Man said:
>>
>> >As for the alarm company getting smacked for 4.5 mil..... tough shit.
>> >Next time secure the place better, using proper design, equipment, good
>> >installers, and top shelf monitoring.
>> >If I get sued for a client losing his ass because I provided an
>> >unrealiable system then by all means hang me out to dry.
>>
>> Horseshit!
>>
>> It said this case was a subrogation action, which means that the computer
>> company had burglary insurance, filed a claim, and got paid...and now the
>> greedy goddamn insurance company wants to pass off the loss to the alarm
>> company or its insurance company.  That insurance company made more in
>> premiums in one year for that burglary insurance policy than the alarm
>> company made in five years of providing a real, honest-to-God service --
>> and now they want to make the alarm company pay off when their customer
>> gets robbed??  Fuck them!
>>
>> When you are selling an alarm system for $25 to $50 a month, you can't
>> also
>> afford to provide five million bucks worth of burglary insurance.  In
>> fact,
>> for those prices, you can't even afford to hire a lawyer to argue about
>> whether you're at fault or not.  That's why we have limitations of
>> liability in our contracts:  if one customer gets robbed and sues you,
>> you
>> will eat up many years of monitoring profits defending yourself, even if
>> it
>> eventually turns out you weren't at fault.
>>
>> If you want to assume the risk of having to pay off if your alarm doesn't
>> prevent a loss, then you will need to set your rates according to how
>> much
>> your customer has to lose.  Nobody assumes a risk without getting paid
>> for
>> it.  And you can be damn sure your insurance company will follow that
>> rule,
>> too:  it will want to know how much it might lose if your alarm doesn't
>> work, and set its premiums accordingly.
>>
>> You think this is just a matter of putting in good systems, but it's not
>> that simple.  Many years ago, jewelry store insurance was prohibitively
>> expensive for many people, and some jewelers did without insurance.
>> These
>> cheap bastards also bought cheap safes.  They figured all they needed was
>> an alarm.  When they got robbed anyway, they sued their alarm companies
>> rather than face the consequences of their own poor decisions.  No doubt
>> they also bitched about the high prices the alarm company was charging.
>>
>> Many factors go into whether a customer suffers a loss, and most of them
>> are not within the alarm company's control.  Why should an alarm company
>> assume the risk, when its customer is cutting corners on physical
>> security,
>> insurance, and maybe even his alarm system?  A customer might not even
>> tell
>> you about his million dollar stamp collection, leaving you to think
>> you're
>> just doing an average house job.  Until he gets robbed, of course.  Then,
>> you sold him an inadequate system!
>>
>> - badenov <
>
> Just one little question to better understand what you're saying. Are
> you telling me the alarm company was FORCED to sell a system to such a
> high risk client? If they weren't then I maintain my tough shit
> standing. Next time they'll be fully prepared. I walk away from high
> risk clients all the time. One thing I do agree with Brinks on is their
> refusal to install for high risk clients.
> Rule of thumb:
> Don't install a system where the potential liability claim is greater
> than or remotely close to that of your current liability insurance
> coverage, and don't come running to me for a handout for your legal
> battles because you bit off more than you can chew.
> This type of shit is caused by greedy bastards trying to sneak one by
> the insurance company, who in turn tries to collect from another sneaky
> bastard who tries to sneak one by his insurance provider annually.
> Unless of course you're going to tell me that nobody cooks the books
> for the insurance audit.
>
> I'm in business for me. I'm not in business for someone in New Jersey,
> and I don't live in this faux fear that what happens in Jersey will
> soon find it's way here.
> If it does then I will deal with it accordingly. I can't speak for any
> of you but I have an attorney on payroll. That's a must.
> I didn't open a business because I know how to install alarms. I opened
> a business because I know how to manage a profitable business.
>
> Our industry is cluttered with dimwits who think all they need to know
> about running an alarm company is equipment pricing, monitoring deals,
> pretty service vans, and labor saving devices. Sacrifice the weak and
> save the herd for Christ's Sake.
> Enough protecting inept goofs with my cash.
>
> I'm a Blockbuster Video member too but should I chip in to help some
> guy in Idaho who's being sued by his neighbor for having his volume
> cranked while watching SpaceBalls?
>
> And if you call me crotchety tonight I'm going to kill all of you old
> fuckers with a 9 iron to the temple :-)
>