comment on more comment on test signals failing to communicate / Group and private meetings at ISC March 2, 2026

KEN KIRSCHENBAUM, ESQ
ALARM - SECURITY INDUSTRY LEGAL EMAIL NEWSLETTER / THE ALARM EXCHANGE
You can read all of our articles on our website. Having trouble getting our emails? Change your spam controls and whitelist ken@kirschenbaumesq.com
****************
comment on more comment on test signals failing to communicate / Group and private meetings at ISC
March 2, 2026

schedule FREE Private or attend Group meeting at ISC
*
   You should have planned your trip to Las Vegas for the ISC West 2026 show; hopefully you have time to spend and meet with your attorney. There will be Group meetings - topics to be announced and hosted by Ken Kirschenbaum and guest hosts, Rory Russell and MItch Reitman and Shawn Iverson, all of whom will also be scheduling private meetings. We will I'll be at the Palazzo scheduling meetings at the Prestige Lounge. To book time for free consult or inquire about attending a Group Meeting or scheduling with Mitch, Rory or Shawn, contact Kathleen Lampert at 516 747 6700 x 319 or KLampert@Kirschenbaumesq.com. Concierge Client can also contact the Concierge Program Coordinator, Stacy Spector,Esq at 516 747 6700 x 304 or SSpector@Kirschenbaumesq.com.

comment on more comment on test signals failing to communicate from article on February 2, 2026

Ken,
   You need to use more sunscreen when you go to the Bahamas and write answers to my submissions, because the jump, leap or moon shot launch you made in your comments about the liability of the central station is ridiculous at best, negligent at worst.
   You obviously overlooked the undisputed fact - I wrote "At issue was the arrangement between the central station and the alarm company. It was undisputed by the alarm company that it was its responsibility to review messages sent by the central station and correct any operational issues sent from the system."
   I don't see where the central station has any liability whatsoever because 1) the alarm company said it was the accepted procedure that it and it alone was responsible to review signal traffic transmitted by its systems, 2) this had been a long standing practice in the relationship between two business entities.
   As you have talked about, especially in the business-to-business relationship, two business entities are free to negotiate and contract with each other for the terms and conditions of their relationship of services purchased.
   If the alarm company did not want to assume this responsibility it was free to negotiate for additional services at an adjusted fee. I will repeat myself again, how this industry can expect no increases in their central station fees, year over year and want concierge services is impossible. Rates have not moved because the central stations have automated certain services, redefined priorities and shifted (as here in this example) responsibilities to the alarm dealer.
   Respectfully as always,
Bart A. Didden
President
U.S.A. Central Station Alarm Corp.
Port Chester, NY
Milford, CT
St. Paul, MN
Pasco, WA
877-872-1266
*
Response
*
   I'm not sure your above comments are on target. The E&O carrier settled a case with potentially large damages before testing the enforcement of the alarm contract provisions. The dealer's insurance was negatively impacted by the settlement. The dealer also indemnified the central station, so it was the dealer's policy that paid the loss.
   Your [worthless] legal opinion that "your comments about the liability of the central station is ridiculous at best, negligent at worst" doesn't make sense if you read what I wrote: "Luckily settlement was within policy limits. Had it not been the dealer would be on the hook."
   You also miss the end of my comments:
   "Another issue arises, and it's the dealer's indemnity of the central station, who in the above case is the one who committed the error. Nevertheless it's the dealer who suffers because of the indemnity provision. It's the dealer's carrier who ran the defense and decided to settle early. Luckily settlement was within policy limits. Had it not been the dealer would be on the hook.
All dealers, be sure to use the K&K Rider to Central Station to limit your indemnity exposure to your insurance coverage. You don't want to be forced out of business because your central station made a mistake and your subscriber suffered a horrific injury."
   Let me simplify this for you so there's [small] chance you understand it.
A central station that monitors a customer's alarm system owes a duty of reasonable care to the customer. If the central station is negligent in its performance it can be sued by the customer.
   The customer doesn't care about the relationship between the central station and the alarm dealer; likely both will be sued. All central stations require their dealers to indemnify the central station; that's industry standard. Smart dealers will limit their indemnity to their insurance coverage; they will make the central station sign the K&K Rider to Central Station Dealer Agreement, at least retaining the indemnity limitation even if other provisions of the Rider don't apply in particular situations.
   But the indemnity is between the dealer and the central station and does not relieve the central station of its direct liability with the dealer.
   A central station and dealer can also agree on allocation of responsibilities, though if outside of industry custom and practice or contrary to the contract the customer has signed, it's not likely the central station will be cleared of liability. It gets a bit tricky because a central station will only be liable for its negligence, which requires a duty to the customer. Just because a dealer hooks up a system to communicate with the central station doesn't mean the central station has assumed a responsibility and created a duty to the customer. For example, a dealer goes into default with the central station and the central station notifies the dealer that it will not monitor its accounts. The central station has no relationship with that new customer. But don't confuse the situation with existing customers that the central station is already monitoring. Those accounts should not be terminated by the central station without notice to the customers. The reason for that is that the customers know the central station is monitoring and expects monitoring. If there is a beef between dealer and central station, unknown to the customers, it would not be wise for the central station to simply notify the dealer that all accounts have been canceled; it needs to be sure the customer knows that monitoring, a duty assumes by the central station, has now terminated. If a loss comes in, a signal ignored, customer could sue the central station for the loss. While the central station could look to the dealer's indemnity that doesn't limit the damages owed to the customer.

STANDARD FORMS Alarm / Security / Fire and related Agreements.   click here: www.alarmcontracts.com
*
CONCIERGE LAWYER SERVICE PROGRAM FOR THE ALARM INDUSTRY - You can check out the program and sign up here: https://www.kirschenbaumesq.com/page/concierge or contact our Program Coordinator Stacy Spector, Esq at 516 747 6700 x 304.
*
ALARM ARTICLES:  You can always read our Articles on our website at ww.kirschenbaumesq.com/page/alarm-articles  updated daily
THE ALARM EXCHANGE - the alarm industries leading classified and business exchange - updated daily
*
Wondering how much your alarm company is worth?
Click here:  https://www.kirschenbaumesq.com/page/what-is-my-alarm-company-worth

Getting on our Email List / Email Articles archived:
  Many of you are forwarding these emails to friends or asking that others be added to the list.  Sign up for our daily newsletter here: Sign Up. You can read articles and order alarm contracts on our web site www.alarmcontracts.com
**********
Ken Kirschenbaum,Esq
Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum PC
Attorneys at Law
200 Garden City Plaza
Garden City, NY 11530
516 747 6700 x 301
ken@kirschenbaumesq.com
www.KirschenbaumEsq.com