ECV and contracts

Ken,

I appreciate the information from people on this ECV. We have not addressed

it but where I am we are not legally required to.

Our own contract says we have the right to verify first, but the dynamic of

attempted calling of 2 or 3 phone numbers has not been addressed.

I also don’t believe it’s a suitable policy for a well managed high risk

facility or a jewelry store alarm at 3 AM, yet, since for my area, since I

have a choice, I would be look at any abusers and inflexibly change the

policy just for them.

Ken, my question is about the subscriber’s legal acceptance. Who out there

has sent the subscriber notice of central monitoring policy changes like

this? And, what duty do we owe the subscriber to notify them of such

policy?

I would rather have a policy that the subscriber acknowledges that states

that the central monitoring service may selectively use a multi calling

verification upon the receipt of any intrusion alarm. That way we are off

the hook either way as laws change or we start making broader sweep

changes.

Thoughts?

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

Now this is a good one.

I do understand the reasons for insurance and more so a quality policy. I

have been arguing with insurance companies for 20+ years and over the years

I come out with the following conclusion.

Insurance Companies Are A Necessary Evil..!!!

Why do alarm company owners think Insurance Carriers require properly

worded contracts? Well that's an easy one; To limit the amount of money

they have to pay out. We install alarm systems to protect their

interests..i.e.: their bottom line.!! So what do we get for that...an

insurance premium. yummy

Dealers should not look to their insurance carrier for contract review -

except to review and approve for insurance purposes. This statement is one

of the most infuriating statements I hear from year to year. I have a

contracts with all the clauses the insurance company wants; inevitably one

of my clients won't like it. So now what do we do..? Well we call the

insurance company broker and they tell us that the contracts were approved

as is and the insurance company will not insure me unless I send them a

copy of the proposed changes. I send them a copy and they tell me they are

not Attorneys and we don't look at the contract changes go see your

attorney. So I see my attorney, he charges $300.00 for the changes and I

send them to the client who agrees and then off to the broker who says the

contracts are no good. Hummm sounds like a catch 22 scenario to me.

Well if you can't do contract review for the insurance company, get me

someone who can.

PS. - I recently changed insurance companies / brokers because of crap I

had to endure on a yearly basis with contract changes. I believe I found a

broker that understands and is willing to work with me on the issues.

Finally!

Mike

CSS

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

Central stations should respond to signals according to their contracts and

any statutes that govern. Subscribers should be notified if there is a

change in procedure, but changes mandated by statute would not necessarily

have to be communicated, just implemented. It makes good business sense to

have communication with your customers.

Ken,

I appreciate the information from people on this ECV. We have not addressedit but where I am we are not legally required to.Our own contract says we have the right to verify first, but the dynamic ofattempted calling of 2 or 3 phone numbers has not been addressed.I also don’t believe it’s a suitable policy for a well managed high riskfacility or a jewelry store alarm at 3 AM, yet, since for my area, since Ihave a choice, I would be look at any abusers and inflexibly change thepolicy just for them.Ken, my question is about the subscriber’s legal acceptance. Who out therehas sent the subscriber notice of central monitoring policy changes likethis? And, what duty do we owe the subscriber to notify them of suchpolicy?I would rather have a policy that the subscriber acknowledges that statesthat the central monitoring service may selectively use a multi callingverification upon the receipt of any intrusion alarm. That way we are offthe hook either way as laws change or we start making broader sweepchanges.

Thoughts?

JR
***************************

Now this is a good one.

I do understand the reasons for insurance and more so a quality policy. Ihave been arguing with insurance companies for 20+ years and over the yearsI come out with the following conclusion.Insurance Companies Are A Necessary Evil..!!!Why do alarm company owners think Insurance Carriers require properlyworded contracts? Well that's an easy one; To limit the amount of moneythey have to pay out. We install alarm systems to protect theirinterests..i.e.: their bottom line.!! So what do we get for that...aninsurance premium. yummyDealers should not look to their insurance carrier for contract review -except to review and approve for insurance purposes. This statement is oneof the most infuriating statements I hear from year to year. I have acontracts with all the clauses the insurance company wants; inevitably oneof my clients won't like it. So now what do we do..? Well we call theinsurance company broker and they tell us that the contracts were approvedas is and the insurance company will not insure me unless I send them acopy of the proposed changes. I send them a copy and they tell me they arenot Attorneys and we don't look at the contract changes go see yourattorney. So I see my attorney, he charges $300.00 for the changes and Isend them to the client who agrees and then off to the broker who says thecontracts are no good. Hummm sounds like a catch 22 scenario to me.Well if you can't do contract review for the insurance company, get mesomeone who can.PS. - I recently changed insurance companies / brokers because of crap Ihad to endure on a yearly basis with contract changes. I believe I found abroker that understands and is willing to work with me on the issues.

Finally!

Mike
CSS
***********************
Central stations should respond to signals according to their contracts andany statutes that govern. Subscribers should be notified if there is achange in procedure, but changes mandated by statute would not necessarilyhave to be communicated, just implemented. It makes good business sense tohave communication with your customers.