Re: Law Suit in NJ

[secure15 <secure15@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nomen Nescio wrote:
> 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
>
Stand By- Ken is reviewing the Case.