October 26, 2011

 

 

****************

self monitoring

*****************

Hi Ken,

Mr. Myers comments below about Alarm.com not being available without central station monitoring are incorrect. I've set up many Alarm.com accounts, all with central station monitoring, but was pretty sure that they could be set up without. I wanted to be sure so I asked an Alarm.com contact. Here's a copy and paste from his reply:

'You can absolutely set up a monitoring account without a central. At the point of account creation, there is an option which asks whether you want to set up a central. If you choose not to, then the account becomes a monitoring only account.'

We don't offer Alarm.com accounts without monitoring through our central but it can be done.

Regards,

Kevin Buckland

True Steel Security & Care Link Advantage

**************

Florida monitoring

*************

Ken,

The answer to B's question regarding Florida fire alarm monitoring is simple and common sense which is you as a EG contractor can only contract and get paid to do what you are licensed to do but not what others you know or are affiliated with can do. I am surprised the Bank would not want the fire alarm contractor they have to do testing, inspections and service to also monitor the fire systems. I imagine B's rates for monitoring are much lower because he/she is less qualified. The bank is probably looking to B to save a few bucks which undoubtedly would cause chaos for the actual fire alarm contractor by having to get valuable information third hand through B's separate monitoring company to service the accounts. I would also caution B to not send and the central station B uses to not handle any fire alarm signals for anything, even the fire panic button on a burg keypad. If the central station B uses does respond to any smoke or fire alarm notification signals they would be considered aiding and abetting an unlicensed contractor. I suggest B joins the Alarm Association of Florida which can provide information and help in understanding may such issues in Florida.

Mark

***************

Hi Ken,

This may answer "B's" question about monitoring in Florida. "B" has an EG license, which is a "burg only" license, and is wanting to enter into an agreement to monitor fire alarm systems which requires an EF license. By entering into an agreement for compensation, "B" would be subject to disciplinary action under state statute F.S. 489 Part II (489.533(1)(s) which would be for practicing beyond the scope of his certification or registration even though he wants to use a licensed third party monitoring company and service contractor. "B" is missing the part of the state statute, governing our industry, that refers to "the execution of contracts". The penalties for heading down this road could range anywhere from $1000 to revocation of his license. The central station could also be in violation under 489.533(1)(k) which is, "knowingly combining or conspiring with any person by allowing one's certificate to be used by any non certified person with intent to evade the provisions of this part". The disciplinary action for this violation could range from $2500 to revocation of license. Walk away from this B.

Bob Worthy CPP, President

Secur Technologies, Inc.

***********

Ken

I can't respond to Florida's laws, but in Alabama my company does commercial fire monitoring thru a UL Fire Approved Supervision Station. A local commercial fire company does all the testing and repair, inspections etc, all I provide is the monitoring account ID. The commercial fire company is not interested in recurring revenue thru monitoring, so the customer contracts with my company. In the past, I have been involved in large commercial fire systems, but do not want to be NICET 3 to design or repair these systems at this time.

My company does not "touch" the commercial fire system. The DACT is installed by the commercial fire company, not Simplex btw, and programmed by them. It seems to be an equitable relationship unless I'm missing something which I'm sure Ken will point out.

 

Hope this helps.

John Elmore

**************

tortious interference

************

Ken,

Thank you for taking on the highly misunderstood subject of tortuous interference. I have worked in wholesale alarm monitoring for the last 17 years and I get a ton of calls about this subject from upset alarm dealers. Most alarm dealers tend to think that their competitors have committed tortuous interference by simply taking over an account that had some term left on the agreement. As you correctly stated, there has to be knowledge of an existing agreement and intent to steer the client into breaching their agreement, which is a form of malfeasance. One thing you didn't mention is the challenge in proving the willful misconduct of the competitor. The main witness that can prove the misconduct is the subscriber. And remember, this is the same person that bought into what the competitor was selling and that is willfully leaving their former service provider. It's highly unlikely that they will testify against the company that they just bought into. Alarm companies that suspect tortuous interference can put competitors on written notice of the alleged offense and that's sometimes just as powerful in getting them to stop. From a damages standpoint, they are more likely to recover liquidated damages from the subscriber for breach of contract than from the competitor for tortuous interference.

Tortuous interference can also occur in business to business contracts, like my own business, wholesale alarm monitoring. We all know that the wholesale alarm monitoring market is very competitive. The ethical players, and this certainly includes our company, will always inquire about the prospective alarm dealer's current agreement with his or her central station and about any remaining contractual obligation. The central station salesperson should be careful to make sure that his or her company is not interfering with existing agreements and that proper notice of cancellation is issued to the current service provider. The salesperson cannot in all cases actually get to see the existing agreement. The majority of time they have to go on the word of the prospective alarm company. This is why it is imperative for wholesale central stations to have a 'non interference' clause in their agreements. This clause simply states that to the central station's knowledge, they are not interfering with any existing agreements and the alarm dealer has to sign off on this.

Anyway, we all need to behave ethically and respect the sanctity of contracts and we all need to be careful not to interfere with existing contracts where no material breach has occurred. Thanks Ken for your valuable forum and feel free to correct me if I misspoken in any area. I certainly defer to your expertise in all things legal; these are just my observations from years of experience.

Mark Matlock

United Central Control, Inc.

San Antonio, TX