Re: Law Suit in NJ

["Jim Rojas" <jrojas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, Honeywell HSL...I was there when they were first introduced. They were
a good idea, provided very high security, and worked really well when you
got use to it. But the high cost of the telco switch boxes made it
affordable only for the select few...

It was dropped in favor of Radionics panels, with derived channel, AlarmNet
A, or Telguard backup. Much cheaper solutions than HSL, but even AlarmNet A
has troubles in large cities. Derived channel made a noise that customers
complained about, and Telguard units were expensive to buy...those were the
early years.

Jim Rojas


"Roland" <roland@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7s65h.7219$rG.1928@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>I agree that the 1401 was junk, but expensive junk at now nearly 500 bucks
>dealer cost. I never used the Potter units you mention, but I used those
>Honeywell units in SCIF centers. Those were the ones where you had to use a
>butt set and listen to beeps in order to set the sensitivity. I think those
>were Honeywell. A real pain. I am glad I only see those in my dreams.
>
> "Jim Rojas" <jrojas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:Yg45h.9601$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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>