Re: Law Suit in NJ

[Nomen Nescio <nobody@xxxxxxxxx>]

Bob Worthy said:

>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.

Since it talks about $4.5 million, the case went to a verdict.  I'm
guessing it went something like this.  Alarm company either admits being
negligent, or is found to be negligent after a trial.  Alarm company then
says, "Who should we make our $500 check out to?"  Other side then presents
some kind of legal argument to the judge on why the limitation of liability
provisions shouldn't apply.  The judge likes the argument, declares those
contract provisions invalid, and enters judgment for the full amount
awarded during the trial.

> 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.

Lawyers keep finding new loopholes.  There have been previous cases in New
Jersey upholding the limitation of liability provisions in alarm contracts,
except in cases of "willful and wanton misconduct."  So, either this judge
just didn't follow the law, or the alarm company did something
exceptionally bad, or some lawyer figured out a new reason why the
limitation of liability shouldn't be enforced.  I'm very interested to see
why this case came out the way it did, but the judge's opinion doesn't seem
to be available online.

This is only the opinion of one trial court.  It doesn't have any value as
precedent.  Only appellate decisions are good for that.

>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.

I checked Kirschenbaum's website, and surprisingly, there isn't any info on
this case.

You're well connected in the industry.  Let us know what you can find out.

- badenov