Re: Law Suit in NJ

["Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:40a5b5b36d3af22c9bd45f3ecbc0fe02@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Bob Worthy said:
>
> 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

No doubt it is serious. My question is was this thrown out prior to the
start of the case or was it thrown out because they proved negligence, in
which case I can understand where limits of liability won't hold up. What I
question more is that all our liability insurance policys (industry wide)
are dependent on the verbage in our installation, service and monitoring
agreements. They all require limits of liability language. It is not for us
to delete. In this case, I am sure this companys insurance company, who
would be licensed in NJ, is representing the defendent. Can they, the
insurance company, be that inept that they wouldn't know the laws of their
own state? That is why I am thinking there is more to this than simply that
limits of liability are against state statute. If it were against state
statute, across the board, I can't help it think it would have come up
before this. Kirchenbaum, being so close to NJ, with him being in the alarm
contract business, most likely would have been vocal about it. Maybe the
cost of doing business in NJ just went up or the tides may get reversed,
have the client name us as additionallly insured.
>