Re: Law Suit in NJ

["Roland" <roland@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree that the 1401 was junk, but expensive junk at now nearly 500 bucks
dealer cost. I never used the Potter units you mention, but I used those
Honeywell units in SCIF centers. Those were the ones where you had to use a
butt set and listen to beeps in order to set the sensitivity. I think those
were Honeywell. A real pain. I am glad I only see those in my dreams.

"Jim Rojas" <jrojas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Yg45h.9601$Bl1.6639@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Yes, those were the good old days. Dual systems, UL this and that. Too bad
> it is cost prohibitive on small mom and pop shops...This was common in the
> NYC diamond districts.
>
> I was a commercial burg & fire tech in NYC. I did many banks, jewelry
> stores, high rise Class E systems, etc.
>
> I never had to lift a safe. The safe company usually handled that. I would
> just show up on the job, tell the owner what the safe needed, it was done
> a day or so later.
>
> I didn't really care for the Ademco 1401. I thought it was a toy. I
> installed mostly Potter EVDA, EVDB, VSA, those type of units. They were
> much more reliable, and were bascially trouble free.
>
> I still remember installing Direct Wire, McCollough circuit Potter EFT's,
> wind up waterflows, gate valve, tank temp & water level
> transmitters...damn I am showing my age.... :)
>
> Jim Rojas
>
>
> "Roland" <roland@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:WU25h.5708$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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>