Re: Law Suit in NJ

["Everywhere Man" <alarminstall@xxxxxxx>]

Which only gives an absolute AMEN to my stance of TOUGH SHIT!
Now this really pisses me off that the NBFAA has the balls to ask me to
chip in to defend ADT.
Why is the NBFAA so willing to throw millions of OUR dollars to help
defend a billion dollar conglomerate like Tyco, and why did they
neglect to mention the company's name in their plea for funds?
I can't wait to hear all of you who drank the NBFAA Kool Aid try to
justify this one.
The organization has just officially become a total fucking sham. Just
admit you're all fucking stupid for buying the shit they were slinging.

Someone audit these bozos and find out what board member is related to
the lawyer they want to retain.

Nick Lawrence............. I can hear you laughing hard because you've
been preaching for a long time about what a crock of crap they are. Way
to go calling that one Nick.

Drive down the coast and buy Doug a beer for posting the info.


Doug wrote:
> 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.
> >>
> >
> >