***************
comment on NY lawsuit featured in article August 8 2012
*****************
Ken
    It is cases like this that scare me.   What can we do as alarm dealers to eliminate the possibility of getting sued? Or do we minimize the damage of a suit? Who pays out the award in the suit? The insurance company or the alarm dealer?
John Romero
******************
Response
*****************
    To eliminate the possibility of getting sued you'd have to stay in bed all day, and night.  We live in a litigious society and our system of justice calls for resort to courts and monetary relief, in most cases, to redress a wrongdoing.  Unless we change to a society where redress is a private matter and if your alarm system doesn't work your subscriber is allowed and expected to come to your house and burn it down or cart away your possessions and possibly your family, you're stuck with our over burdened court system and the many lawyers it supports.  I'm one of them so I'm not complaining.
    There are ways to minimize the risk of getting sued and reduce the damages you may be held accountable for.  Tied for first place is 1) using your best efforts to ensure your work is properly and expertly performed and your equipment operating properly, and 2) using proper contracts, the Standard Form Contracts of course.  Second place is for your insurance coverage.  That won't stop you getting sued but your carrier will in most cases provide you with defense and indemnity should you be found responsible for a loss.  To answer your question of who pays, you probably have a deductible, and once you pay it your insurance carrier will pay the rest of the expenses up to your policy limits.  Make sure you take the time to read and understand your insurance policy because that policy is your contract with your carrier and it defines the carrier's contractual duties to you when you have a claim.  
***************
more on the NY case https://www.kirschenbaumesq.com/article/alfred-lenoci-v-secure-alarm-installations
****************
Hi Ken;
    I read with much interest the case concerning the gross negligence issue.  I take issue with the claim on several levels.  First, if the UV window coatings were properly applied (which they obviously were,) it would not be apparent to the installer that there was a film on the windows.  Secondly, and more importantly, most UV window films have a 5 year life.  Having read the judgment, it doesn't mention when the UV film was applied  and it may well have been applied after the installation, nor does it mention if the alarm company was notified that such a film was in place at the time of the alarm installation or if the company was notified if it was applied after the alarm install.  Also, it appears that even if the glass break detectors had been tested and working correctly, they would not have activated the alarm system when the window was broken.  Since there was at least a six year gap between the time that the alarm was installed and the burglary occurred, many things may have taken place.  If the film was applied after installation of the security system and the installation company wasn't notified, how were they negligent?  I often tell my customers that glass break detectors age like people.  After about 10 years, they become "hard of hearing"  and should be replaced.  I think that due to the amount of time from the installation to the time of the last service call, it may have been prudent to again test the glass break detectors, but I maintain that even if they were tested and were in good working order, they would not have responded to the breaking glass through the UV film.  Do the courts expect the alarm installation companies to be clairvoyant?  I just re-read the installation instructions for the glass break detectors that I use, and it mentions that heavy drapes could impede the functionality of the detectors, but never mentions the application of a UV inhibiting film.  Maybe the insurance company should have been looking to subrogate the claim with the glass break manufacturer.
John from NJ
***************
Question - Model Code versus the Standard and contractor liability
***************
Ken,
    I have a question concerning Model Code versus the Standard and contractor liability when the two conflict.  2009 IBC (International Building Code) section 907.4.1 requires a smoke detector at the fire alarm panel.  Exception #2 under this section says the smoke detector is not required if the building is fully sprinkled.  2010 NFPA 72 section 10.15 requires a panel smoke detector as well and does not have any exception to omit the smoke detector if the building is sprinkled.  Essentially we have a model code (IBC) and a standard (NFPA 72) that read differently with respect to the same requirement.  There are 2 schools of thought on what do do here: 1) the more stringent requirement prevails and the smoke detector is to be installed above the fire panel.  2) The model code supersedes the standard and the smoke detector does not have to be installed above the fire panel.  I typically like to play it safe and would install the smoke detector any way since we're not talking about very big dollars for one extra detector.  Can you give me your opinion on what the laws and courts might say in regards to a model code and a standard that differ?  Lets say for the sake of argument that an AHJ has adopted both the 2009 IBC and 2010 NFPA 72.  A contractor opts not to install a smoke detector above the fire panel because the building is sprinkled.  The AHJ approves the fire alarm system without the panel smoke detector.  A fire starts at the panel and takes it out of commission before the panel can even go into alarm.  Is the contractor liable or is the contractor protected by the second school of thought that the model code over rides the standard?  This is just a fictitious scenario.  
Thanks,
Mark Snodgrass
Fire Alarm Designer
Checkpoint Systems, Inc.
Chanhassen, MN
****************
Response
****************
    I don't disagree with your reasoning, install more rather than less, but I think the real issue is that you should be complying with AHJ requirements.  AHJ requirements should not be conflicting.  AHJ shouldn't adopt two standards that are not consistent.  If AHJ does then let the AHJ inspector make the decision and get it in writing.  Unless clearly erroneous and egregious, you should be following AHJ instructions, and if the instructions make no sense then you need to bring it to the AHJ's attention.  Ultimately you owe your duty to your subscriber.  You want to satisfy your contract obligations which will often incorporate AHJ installation and service requirements.
**************