The exculpatory clause and limitation of liability provision have been a staple
in alarm contracts for a long time and the language has not changed in many
years. I will be making a change this week and it is recommended that
contracts be upgraded to incorporate the change. Essentially the provisions
will now include "strict products liability" as one of the list of items the
clause protects against.
Is that specific language absolutely necessary? Probably not. However
better safe than sorry.
This change is prompted by a recent case decided in favor of ADT in
Illinois. The case is:
CHICAGO STEEL RULE AND DIE FABRICATORS COMPANY and TRAVELERS INDEMNITY
COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, as Subrogee of Chicago Steel Rule and Die Fabricators
Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ADT SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. ADT SECURITY
SERVICES, INC. and TYCO INTERNATIONAL LTD. Defendants-Appellees.
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SIXTH DIVISION
327 Ill. App. 3d 642; 763 N.E.2d 839; 2002 Ill. App. LEXIS 19; 261 Ill. Dec.
590
January 18, 2002, Decided
The decision is too long to email. If you want a copy email me and I will
either send in two pieces or attach it.
I will be writing more on this case and the exculpatory and limitation
of liability clause later this week. The language change will be to include
the specific words "strict products liability" in the paragraphs.