Re: Suggestion for box where alarm monitoring failovers from landline to cell phone - when landline is cut.

[Frank Olson <Use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robert L Bass wrote:


> Like I said before, you are totally disingenuous.

Of the individuals that post here regularly, Mark is one of the most
upstanding and helpful I know.  Unlike you, he's never lied or
plagiarized someone else's work.


> You know as well as I that standard alarm company monitoring contracts --
> virtually all of them -- include a limitation of liability clause which says that in the event they are held liable for any customer
> losses the alarm company's maximum liability shall be $250 or one year's monitoring fees, whichever is lesser.  The precise amount
> varies but that is the gist of it.  This has been discussed in ASA hundreds of times over the years and you have participated in
> those threads.

Yes, it has.  There was a similar "limitation clause" in Chubb's
contract, yet when a customers premise burned down and the alarm failed
to notify the station, they were held liable for significant damages
*over and above* the so-called "limitation".

All of the individuals *in the trade* that post here are either owners,
managers, or employees of alarm companies.  Alarm companies (in most
states and provinces) need to be licensed, bonded and *insured*.  When I
say "insured", that means they carry a significant amount of liability
coverage (usually on the order of 5 million dollars, but that amount
increases depending on the type of work they're involved in).  From your
statement concerning "limitation of liability", I take it you've never
carried liability insurance, errors and omissions, or failure to
perform.  You've relied entirely on the "$250.00 limitation clause" in
your contract to protect your ass.  You're a moron, Bass, and I for one
am very glad that you no longer run (or are involved in) an alarm
installation/service company.  There are far too many "trunkers" out
there as it is and one less is all for the better.



> At this stage we're talking about the reason you lie, not his questions.  I answered him correctly.  You lied.


Interesting how you've managed to divert this thread with a few well
placed "snips", isn't it?