March 2, 2011
******************
Below is a comment regarding the February 23, 2011 email which addressed the topic: Cellular and other modes of communication - network liability. Alarm companies choose to establish, own and operate their own radio network rather than rely upon networks owned by others. If the network owner is servicing its own subscribers then the Standard Monitoring Contract should be modified to disclose the network ownership, and provide insulation from liability. If the network owner is providing radio service to other alarm companies and not contracting directly with subscribers then contracts will be necessary between the network owner, the dealers and the subscribers. Contact our Contract Administrator, Eileen, at 516 747 6700 x 312 for these forms.
***********
Comment
***********
Ken---
More on Providing Alarm Communications Network’s and the Liability of Failure of the Systems. .Re-selling, or Ownership of Alarm Communications---- such as Radio (Digital Mesh), Cell (GSM), Internet, or other Wireless (point to point) or Fiber Network’s. Open’s the door on “Proprietary Ownership E&O Liability” , attributed to network failure of workmanship error, Maintenance E&O, Equipment failure, Protection of the Network from Cyber Breach Interruption, and Power supply failure-- which are some of the direct ownership responsibility’s. When Network Communications is provided by the Phone and Cable TV provides for alarm connection and purchased by the home owner, “Proprietary or Products” Liabilities are .mitigated differently. .
Alarm Contracts that provide and extend exculpatory and limitation of liability clauses to Ownership or Re-Selling of Alarm Communications Networks Connections would be very important, and would work hand in hand with Network “Proprietary E&O Liability Insurance” for Defense and Indemnification. This subject leads to the crossover exposures from Phone Pots Line to Digital Network Connections and different Liabilities—
Ken-thanks again for keeping your e-mail Newsletter up and going---
“Network Beach—Not If—But When “
Mike Kelly
Michael J. Kelly Insurance Agency
***************
Comments on window film
******************
Ken,
Thank you for providing this forum as the Window Film question is another great topic. As an attorney, I agree with your assessment of the window film product and that your contracts will cover the installing companies. However as a security professional since 1990 (earned my CPP in 2002), I advise caution in using such products. Integrators need to understand the technical implications of the devices as they function in the system overall. For example, if your client is in a remote area and intruders could take their time in removing a glass window, instant detection of glass breakage is important and, window film may not be a great choice since it can render glass break sensors ineffective. If you provide both the audio discriminator devices and the window film, you might even be susceptible to negligence claims. My two cents is that a well rounded risk management program regardless of the size of the company includes using quality contracts, suitable insurance, best business practices, and measure of that elusive common sense.
Thank you again for your contribution to our industry!
David J. Coughlin, Esq.
Corporate Counsel, Contracts/Risk Manager
G4S/Touchcom
***********
Ken:
Jim Blanchard's post struck me as interesting as well a raising a concern. I would be very hesitant to describe this type of window film, 3Ms or anyone else's, as a"deterrent". It may (and does) mitigate risks from loss as well as help protect people from flying glass shards. I don't see how it acts as a deterrent, when a different window film can tint or act as a reflective agent on glass also but without having a UL 972 rating. Thanks for your emails. Keep them coming. They're valuable as a source of education and discussion.
Thanks,
Mitch Cohen
Director of Engineering
************