Re: Law Suit in NJ

["Jim Rojas" <jrojas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, those were the good old days. Dual systems, UL this and that. Too bad
it is cost prohibitive on small mom and pop shops...This was common in the
NYC diamond districts.

I was a commercial burg & fire tech in NYC. I did many banks, jewelry
stores, high rise Class E systems, etc.

I never had to lift a safe. The safe company usually handled that. I would
just show up on the job, tell the owner what the safe needed, it was done a
day or so later.

I didn't really care for the Ademco 1401. I thought it was a toy. I
installed mostly Potter EVDA, EVDB, VSA, those type of units. They were much
more reliable, and were bascially trouble free.

I still remember installing Direct Wire, McCollough circuit Potter EFT's,
wind up waterflows, gate valve, tank temp & water level transmitters...damn
I am showing my age.... :)

Jim Rojas


"Roland" <roland@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:WU25h.5708$rG.860@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>A jewelry store with insurance and no UL system? The ones I installed (none
>in recent years) were always the most anal specs, other than a SCIF. Most
>of the time they had two separate systems. It was always a good way to wake
>up when fixing foil and you forgot the loop current was at 90 volts. Heck
>even the ground was supervised on a day zone. And those nasty Ademco 1401
>capacitance alarms? Jacking up the safe and all. My back! I am glad I don't
>do jewelry stores anymore. Better knock on wood because you never know.
>
> "Jim Rojas" <jrojas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:we05h.9058$Bl1.8702@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
>