Re: Law Suit in NJ

["Jim Rojas" <jrojas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yeah...I have been there...We had this jewelry store customer move locations
3 times in 6 years.

At our first encounter, we took over his antique Ademco 4140XM. He refused
to upgrade, or add a backup radio, or phone line monitor, so he signed a
waiver...all was good.

At our 2nd encounter, we removed his 4140XM and installed it in his new
location. He again refused to upgrade, or add a backup radio,  or phone line
monitor, so he signed a waiver...all was good.

At our 3rd encounter, we removed his 4140XM and installed it in his next new
location. He again refused to upgrade. But this time he cracked open his
wallet, and paid $140 for a AlarmNet A backup radio. He still refused to
install the phone line monitor, so he signed a waiver...all was good.

At our 4th encounter, we removed his 4140XM & AlarmNet A Radio, and
installed it in his next new location. He again refused to upgrade. He now
felt that $65 a month to monitor opening & closings with Radio backup was
just too much for him to bear. So he had us remove the openings & closings
to save money. He signed yet another waiver.

One day I get a call from my expartner, the store was broken into...I arrive
at the scene and find his safes were peeled open, phone line cut, and all
the alarm equipment was on the floor smashed to pieces.

Several months later, the monitoring station and our company get sued
because the business owner only received 60 percent of his insurance
claim...he let his policy expire...what a surprise...so he figured he could
recover the other 40 percent from the alarm & monitoring company.

His lawyer said we were negligent and went on and on...after I faxed over
all the waivers, and his service revisions his client signed over the years,
complete with upgrade recomendations, I never heard from his attorney again.
I did appear as a key witness for the monitoring station lawsuit, soon
afterwards the monitoring station was released of any liability.

In my opinion, the insurance company was at fault from the very beginning.
They should have required the store owner to have a UL Listed and inspected
system installed and maintained at all times. But this is expensive on both
sides. The business owner can't afford the monthly & UL inspection fees, and
the insurance company is looking to save costs by taking shortcuts as usual.

Jim Rojas



"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5d8c9a4d487f8e7d5d333218effcc1f6@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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
>