September 25, 2010

**********

Question:

***********

Ken,

    I just read through the auto test article on your website and found it very informative.  There are a lot of aspects to cover with that topic.  I can understand from a service aspect that the auto test is nice, but I was hoping to get a very straight answer in regards to liability. For liability reasons, would it be better that we leave the timer off, and make it the responsibility of the consumer to test the system once a month? 

    That brings up a second point, if the auto test is off, do we gain any liability when we know for a fact that the customer has not tested the system in 6 months and we do nothing about it?

Thanks

Leo Taylor

ESI Security

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

Answer:

**********

    You can read all the prior email articles at http://www.kirschenbaumesq.com/emailarticles.htm  Use the Edit - search and find feature to find an article of interest.

    If a panel comes with auto test feature then it would be prudent to note somewhere, on the contract or on a Disclaimer Notice, that you are not activating that feature.  You should have some logical reason for that decision.  I can see a case being made for negligence, perhaps gross negligence since your decision not to active the feature may have no logical basis and you may not let the subscriber know about it.

    If your contract places the onus on the subscriber to test the system, as my Standard Forms do, then you would think that you had no obligation to let a subscriber know that the system is not operating, even if you know it.  Your failure to act in a reasonable manner, coupled with a terrible loss that is connected to the alarm failure, could expose you.  Why take a chance?  If you have information and knowledge then you most likely have a duty to act.

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

Comments on taking an ADT account

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

Hi Ken;

     I read Bettie's letter (and sad story,) and it really made me mad.  These larger companies that are supposedly giving away "free" security systems when in fact they are really just selling very expensive "low end" monitoring I feel are unscrupulous at best.  What they don't tell the customer is that they are getting a system that reports in the Ademco Low Speed format.  If their salesman can beef up the system with additional sensors (for a fee of course,) the customer is still paying an exorbitant amount for a very slow speed communication format.  They do this, so their installers have to do nothing more than hang the panel on the wall and follow company directives for the zone list, and no on site programming.   I have sold jobs to people who had estimates from a few of the "big boys," and by the time they got done adding the extra motion detectors and other sensors, their price was several hundred dollars more than what I estimated the job for, and I'm giving my customers all top shelf equipment and use either the Contact ID or SIA formats which are many times faster than the Ademco Low.  AND with me they are paying anywhere from $15 to $25 less per month for monitoring.

         It's a shame that our society has come to this.  You have to cover your butt legally at every turn.  Gone are the days of a company being good for their word, and large deals made on a handshake.  I use your contracts and believe me when I tell you, I do cover my butt, it's just said that society has become so litigious.

Sincerely,

John from NJ

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

    Taking from Bettie’s story, could ADT sue both the subscriber and the company who took over the account for say “interference with commercial gain?” To put it simply especially in these economic times we lose customers to other alarm companies for a variety of reasons. Do we have any recourse against a competitor who takes an account away from us before the expiration of a contract with a customer especially if there is leased equipment left on the premises e.g. communicator, chip, pipe or wire? 

Bob Williams

**************  yes - tortious interference of contract.  I've done several articles on the topic - we'll address it again soon

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

    I wanted to comment on this posting I do not believe that the customer was billed that dollar amount from ADT, they have a clause that says they have to pay 75 percent of the balance of contract with a one year renewal, I would ask the customer for a copy.

Miguel