Re: Term agreement with NextAlarm (Fishy?)

[Frank Olson <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Doug wrote:
>  Having a local company isn't a solution for what the poster is asking, he
> just needs to apply a little common sense. Its unreasonable to expect an
> alarm or monitoring company  to assume unlimited liability when they are
> only receiving somewhere between $8 and $30 per month for the service. You
> have insurance to cover a loss, where the rates are calculated according to
> the risk and declared value of property
>
> I don't know how you do it in Canada Frank, but in the US its near universal
> for an alarm or monitoring company, be it local or national to have
> limitation of liability and third party indemnification clause's in their
> contracts.
>
> Doug


We have them too.  Our contract wording isn't much different from yours.
  We also carry liability insurance that provides coverage for "failure
to perform" (as do most alarmcos) for that "off chance" where the
contract wording is either ignored or dismissed by the court.  I've
watched it happen with Chubb, ADT, and a small outfit in Edmonton.  In
the latter instance it involved over $300,000 in gold wafers stolen from
a safe (the line cut signal was ignored by the station operator because
it was accidentally programmed as a "low priority" trouble during a
software upgrade that involved the new SIMS II program and a Morse
receiver).  The "failure to perform" provision is NOT a part of the
standard homeowners contract (and I don't think it's something you can
add either).  For that reason, I'll stick with my original suggestion.
Call a reputable local independent dealer to monitor your equipment.