Comment On Monitronics Case By Videofied

August 22, 2013


I read your article on the “Monitronics vs. Veasley” lawsuit and the potential threat it poses to the limitation of liability provisions in our alarm contracts. I believe that, from a different perspective, this same lawsuit underscores the value of video verification and how, in fact, it delivers greater security.
As you already noted in the lawsuit, the alarm system functioned perfectly. The PIR motion sensors detected the initial intrusion in the morning and an additional four times throughout the day – they did what they were designed to do. Police responded but were unaware that the intruder was actually inside the premises and subsequently left, attributing the incidents as false alarms. However, the owner returned home unaware that there was an intruder in her home.
If this alarm had used Videofied MotionViewers instead of standard PIRs, this entire lawsuit would never have occurred. The operators at Monitronics’ central station would have seen the intruder at the initial alarm and would have received an additional four video clips of him throughout the day. The central station operators would have communicated to the responding police that the perpetrator was still inside the premises. The police would not have left the home thinking it was a false alarm. The property owner would not have been assaulted and Monitronics and their insurers would have saved millions of dollars.
Video verification is more than false alarm reduction, it delivers greater security and that is valuable for an industry that sells security. Now that a MotionViewer costs nearly the same as a standard wireless PIR, why would anybody install anything else?
Keith Jentoft, President
RSI Video Technologies
I agree. The Residential All in One and the Commercial All in One have been updated since the Monitronics decision, and these contracts also cover Videofied, ECV, and all your other services.