Re: Law Suit in NJ

["Doug" <not@xxxxxxxx>]

According to Ken Kirschenbaum, it was ADT and because the contract wasn't
signed by an ADT representative , the judge held that there was no written
contract.


Doug

--

"Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:aY25h.13517$U76.7482@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Nomen Nescio" <nobody@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:40a5b5b36d3af22c9bd45f3ecbc0fe02@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Bob Worthy said:
>>
>> All I know is what the NBFAA president had to say on their website:
>>
>> http://www.alarm.org/info_ctr/amicus/gunning_ltr_amicus_brief.pdf
>>
>> A New Jersey trial court ruled that the llimitation of liability  and
>> indemnification clauses in alarm contracts are unenforceable under New
>> Jersey law.  I'm guessing this will get reversed on appeal, but that
>> costs
>> money.  Appealing the case also gives a higher court the opportunity to
>> declare this really is the law in New Jersey.  So, it's four and a half
>> million dollars worth of serious.
>>
>> - badenov
>
> 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. 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. 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.
>>
>
>