Re: INSTEON: Let the recalls begin ...

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"BruceR" <br@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

> >> Well, as they say, "You can tell the Pioneers by the arrows in their
> >> >
> > backs!"  We do seem to be getting our share of arrows but the
> >> overall  benefits will probably be worthwhile.
> >
> > What would those overall benefits be?
>
> The primary benefit is signal reliability. I've been working with X10
> stuff for 22 years and know the tricks and tips to signal reliability
> but there are areas in my house that are just not supportable with X10 -
> even with an XTB and/or repeaters and filters - and, of course, even
> when it does work it may change.  Insteon signals are reliable and reach
> every square inch of my house.  I think that after I replace the 2414X
> with the RoZetta my experience will be much better.

I am surprised that you never figured out what was blackholing your X-10
signal.  If anyone's got the tools and know-how, it's you.  I'll also admit
that in a larger house, I might be singing a different tune about X-10.  But
I'm happy being coupled through the utility pole.  With the XTB, I reach
ever corner.  If that weren't true, I'd be more inclined to experiment with
Insteon.  The only issue left is the many Maxi and minicontrollers I have.
Equipping them all with XTB's is not practical.  I might be able to solve it
by running a 110VAC signaling circuit through the house that allows multiple
controllers to share a smaller number of XTB's.  It's not very elegant,
though.

I recall that you had mysterious delink and relink problems in the worst SAF
place in the house - the kitchen.  Until you run that to ground, I would
have to put a question mark next to "signal reliability" since it would be a
real issue in my house to screw up the kitchen lights.  Maybe that should
come under some other heading, but it really makes me nervous when devices
reprogram themselves.

It makes me even more nervous when it's Switchlincs that are doing it
because they already have a reputation for losing their address settings.
This is another issue where I feel complexity is the enemy of reliability.
I've never had a codewheel reset itself to a different house or unit code.

> >> If I were paying an electrician to change these things I'd be pissed
> >> but, as you point out, our time is worth nothing (unless somebody
> >> else is willing to pay for it).  Even if I have to replace
> >> everything, I can do it all in a day -
> >
> > But as my econ prof said "Wouldn't you rather be doing something else
> > you *wanted* to do that day?"
>
> Sure, but it's an inconvenience rather than a dollar cost. I'm not going
> to pass up doing something better to do the job but instead do it when
> I'd normally be doing nothing more than staring at the the tube.  It's
> not like a plumbing leak that has to be fixed right this minute.

You retired guys.  There's no weekend in the forseeable future where I would
trade jackassing wall switches in and out for anything other than root canal
work or an IRS audit.  Isn't it reasonable to assume that at least some
others have a greater "switch jackassing" cost than you?  Some might have
hired electricians, some might have traded favors with friends or BIL's for
help and some might break off wires close to the wall and really get fu(ked.

> >Lost opportunity costs are hard to
> > see, but they're there.  If SmartHome had to pay the full freight of
> > the SwitchLinc recall (electricians, lost time, potential home wiring
> > damage) their bottom line would be bathed in red ink.  I don't know
> > what their warranty says, but I'm betting they went to great pains to
> > exclude liability for true recall costs.   The trouble is that in
> > some states, you can exclude whatever you want but the courts have
> > the final say whether those exclusions are sustainable.  My guess is
> > that in consumer-friendly California, Smarthome's at risk.
>
> I think that, like most limited warranties, the remedy is to return the
> unit for repair or replacement with no manufacturer liability for
> installation, removal or shipping. That will hold up in most states - >
even California.

All depends on state laws and case circumstances.  I'll admit it would be
hard to get electrician's fees out of them, but in many product liability
cases enterprising lawyers get hold of a smoking gun (the IBM/Hitachi HD
class action suit, for one) that implicates the company in negligent
behavior.  That case centered on company emails that showed IBM/Hitachi
shipped drives that they knew to be bad.  Buyers of said drives often
suffered serious consequential damages.

If I have been following the threads correctly, there's real reason to
believe that Smarthome is continuing to ship switches they have a fairly
substantial reason to believe are defective.  Usually it's not until someone
got fired or PO'ed at the company that such a leaked memo appears.
Concealment was an issue in the Big Tobacco suits - they KNEW smoking was
bad, and they continued to pump cigarettes out the door while working very
hard to conceal the scientific proof.

If the vendor behaves badly, the limited warranty won't exclude
consequential damages in a number of states, of which I believe California
is one.  Then there are other states where jurors can decide not only the
facts of a case, but the law as well.  All bets are off in those states
although judges rarely tell jurors of the awesome powers they possess.
There's an interesting article here:

http://www.truthinjustice.org/informed.htm

I'll just say that if there's proof that they knew they were shipping bad
switches and some poor schmoe electrocutes himself swapping out two dozen
"known bad" switches when he might never have bought them had he known of
the defect, I would bet on the poor schmoe's estate and lawyer to recover
substantial sums.  That seems only reasonable to me, but then I'm very
strongly pro-consumer.  When I owned a business, it was another story! :-)

> > If it's  like any other industry, they'll settle up with the
> > complainants that have threatened legal action and those
> > consumers will get a much  better deal than most because
> > I am sure Insteon is desperate to avoid a court case over
> > the SwitchLincs.  Why?  Well, if they lose, it  might set a
> > precedent for them having to pay those true costs for all
> > the other Insteon users affected by the flicker problem.
> >
> > Civil cases often focus on what it makes to make the plaintiff
> > "whole" again.  In this case, that might easily include the cost
> > of jacking out all the Insteon switches and replacing them with
> > what was there before.  It could easily become worse if some
> > former Insteon employee  releases embarrassing documents to
> > the web (as has happened with other company's product
> > liability suits) that make their way into litigation.
>
> I doubt anybody's going to sue. The damages are just not great enough to
> warrant the costs and effort and Smarthome is doing everything they've
> promised in their warranty.

Dude.  People sue just for fun.  You owned a business so you must have run
into the suit-happy customer.  If not, you were very, very lucky.  If
someone paid an electrician to install the switches, and there were a lot of
switches, you're talking about damages that will get you into virtually any
US state's small claims court, some circuit courts and any TV court on the
air, except, maybe, Divorce Court or Animal Court.  I'll bet you could
solicit testimony from the wives of any HA enthusiast about the pain and
suffering involved in a malfunction lighting system that might even get you
on Divorce Court! :-)  I'd never consider myself suit-proof just based on a
small dollar figure.  I've been sued for under $1000.  I'm sure I am not
alone.  All it takes is a highly pissed off plaintiff and a filing fee.

Speaking much more seriously, the wife of a (hypothetical, AFAIK) man who
was killed replacing switches would have a hell of wrongful death case.
Especially if it could be proved that replacing the switches was very likely
outcome of Smarthome's decision to continue selling the switches even after
the defect was revealed.  I doubt they could convince a jury that the
replacement wasn't an inevitable outcome.  If I ever get near a Lexis
terminal again, I'll look to see if anyone's filed.  These kinds of recalls
almost always involve at least the filing of suits, if not prolonged
litigation.

There were some mighty PO'ed sounding people on one of the forums I looked
at and I'll bet some of them consider a lost weekend a big issue.  It may be
that anyone who's bought switches after the problem became publicly known is
entitled to more than a straight-up refund since Smarthome knew of the
defect but continued to sell the items in question.  I don't recall them
posting "If you intend to run loads at half dim" (or whatever the conditions
were that caused flickering) "please wait until the next revision" in their
ads.  The certainly could have made some sort of disclaimer I am not aware
of at purchase time.

Not seeking "informed consent" may very cleanly negate their disclaimer of
consequential damages because they've already acknowledged the problem but
apparently are continuing to sell the old, 'known bad' switches.  They can't
have passed ETL muster yet, can they?   Hmmm.  I wouldn't want to be them
right now.

I think for them to be suit-proof, they would have had to stop sales or in
the very least clearly detail the problem as best they knew it to potential
buyers.  It doesn't seem as if they've done either, although I am sure their
lawyer will point to their message board (and maybe even this thread!) as
their disclaimer and notification.  I suspect a jury would find that
information should have been more prominently displayed, probably in the
advertisements themselves.

I'm really surprised they didn't stop selling the switches, particularly
when I think about the potential legal issues.  I'll bet there were a least
a couple of big meetings at HQ on the subject.  If there's a wrongful death
claim, those minutes will be subpoenaed in discovery.  If those minutes or
relevant emails say something dumb like "we knew that 2% of the end users
would suffer this problem" then they've loaded and cocked the smoking gun.
If they knew that someone was going to suffer as a result of their
deliberate actions, then they're likely going to called on to make that 2%
whole.

While I do agree with you that lone plaintiffs would have very little $
incentive to sue, the worst thing that could happen to Smarthome  now is for
a class action attorney to get wind of the recall.  That's when the
relatively small, 'unprofitable to litigate' claims whose small size had
served to insulate them from legal action suddenly take on very serious
proportions.  Sadly, the CA lawyers will get at least $250K in legal fees
and consumers like you will get a $5 to $50 coupon for more of the same
product!

I wouldn't be surprised if some (probably more than one!) class action
attorney scours Google Groups every day for the term "Class action lawsuit"
or "product liability" and is already aiming an action at Smarthome.  The
kicker is how many they've sold.  It's probably not even enough to entice a
hungry class action lawyer.

> > I salute you, brave pioneer, but I wouldn't want to BE you! :-)
>
> Oh, it's not so bad being me!
> >
> > Oh, and the trick to the arrows is to break off the fletching and
> > push the arrow THROUGH the wound.

Important Revision to Arrow Wound Instructions 1A:

Leave the arrow in unless it's poisoned-tip, was previously a wriggling
snake in the hands of Thulsa Doom or it happens to be on fire!

--
Bobby G.