Re: Law Suit in NJ

["Everywhere Man" <alarminstall@xxxxxxx>]

You worked for Holmes?

Jim Rojas wrote:
> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >