Re: Law Suit in NJ

["Roland" <roland@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have been following this thread and it made no sense until now (and
frankly before now it made me laugh.) There was sort of a surprised "what
went wrong" note I sensed in the posts. Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth
Fairy and justice from a court are all on the same level. Never expect it,
be shocked when it happens. If you've had your butt in court as much as I
have you remember (as you mentioned already) that the jury can't say
anything about the law, in a contract or otherwise. The judge decides the
law and the jury decides the facts without regard to the consequences of
their decision. In fact the jury cannot be told what the results of their
decision actually mean. Now I am curious as to how the cash extraction will
be performed in this special attorney enrichment program here. Is this a
pass the hat for alarm companies to save the world? Or a one insurance
company passes the loss to another? Or the taxpayer rolls snake eyes again?
One thing for certain, no attorney involved is going to miss a meal.

"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4f41acbac4d17f7de6a7356fae5d94ba@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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
>