Re: ADT lawsuit

[Frank Olson <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bob wrote:
> Frank Olson wrote:
>> Bob wrote:
>>> http://newsmax.com/entertainment/people_lansing_friedkin/2008/07/11/112076.html
>>>
>>>
>>> wonder why they dropped the suit?
>>
>>
>> ADT paid their insurance deductible?  :-)
> that must be that verified response stuff.  eh.  2 hours to verify. woow
> .  I wonder how much a month for that?


I can recall an incident involving a monitoring station in Edmonton.
The thieves hit at the same time the station was undergoing a software
upgrade to SIMS II.  The Morse receiver processed an "offline" signal as
a low priority "trouble" instead of a high priority "line cut" because
the signal tables had to be manually translated for it all to work (a
crucial "step" the station manager had "missed").  As a consequence, the
operator missed the fact that the jewelry store's alarm communications
had been compromised.  Of course, the station "management" blamed the
operator and sacked her to demonstrate to the customer that it was
"operator error" instead of their gross negligence.

ADT has a "guarantee" in most of the new contracts I've read where they
state they'll cover your insurance deductible if for any reason the
system doesn't work "as advertised".  If the jewelry and other high
value goods hadn't been "value formed", then I can also imagine that
such a "high profile" customer would get "extra" on top of that.  Don't
kid yourself.  ADT "paid" for it all in the end...