January 28, 2012
*************
*************
Question re false alarms and liability
************
Hi Ken
San Jose CA just announced their Verified Response /VR Policy; Their justification = .... out of 12,000 calls for help from monitoring firms within one year, nearly all were false/unnecessary (only 1% filed police reports, only 2 bad guys captured.... out of 12,000 calls).
Excerpt from news article:
"..The alarm industry is sounding its own alarm, saying the verified response policy.... will result in home and business owners investigating alarm calls themselves..."
Ken, does that mean alarm companies will/could be legally liable for personal injuries or other loss experienced by their customers that result from unnecessary emergency calls from their monitoring source, (with historical evidence that they could be sent to the alarm site without justification, other than an unknown signal)? Example, auto accident while quickly driving to the site in middle of rainy night.
Do alarm suppliers have to rewrite their contracts, or adjust E&O insurance?
Thanks Ken;
Lee Jones
Support Services Group
******************
Answer
******************
The hypothetical questions are not only theoretical. There are a number of cases where alarm companies have been sued for reporting what turns out to be a false alarm and police officers are injured responding. Two cases that I've defended come to mind, a car accident case where cop was responding to a false alarm and a cop's foot through a defective wood step at back of house investigating what turned out to be a false alarm. [yes, no money paid on either case]. False alarms come with the territory and I don't believe increase the liability risk. The Standard Form contracts already address the false alarm exposure as far as the subscriber is concerned. Of course contracts can't affect third parties who respond, but I don't see why a false alarm as opposed to an actual alarm should create any more or different liability.
******************
Comment on contract protection
******************
The Georgia case makes me think about contract protection. Contract can not spell out every possible detail. There is no room and people would not read multi-page document. They would simply claim it was to long to read, or claim that something was hidden in long text paragraph. Maybe we need some standards.
For example what is central station duty to subscriber. The central station should notify subscriber about alarm or trouble condition using contact information provided by subscriber. If the subscriber can not be reached, the subscriber can not be notified. The standard should describe how many re-tries should be attempted, and how often - let say every 15 minutes for up to an hour after receiving signal. The central station can not be tied up any longer.
What is the duty of alarm installer when system needs repair. Your contract specifies business hours. That excludes weekends and holidays. The standard should provide some time for troubleshooting, ordering parts, etc. Not simple task to make these standards.
Dusan
****************
Answer
***************
You are correct that contracts cannot address every contingency and possibility that may arise, and to a considerable extent parties can rely on common sense as well as industry trade practices, which include recognized regulatory agency guidelines. Requirements of the AHJ also override contract provisions and failure to comply with statutes and AHJ requirements may be the basis of liability per se, which means absolute liability.
****************
Fake cameras
****************
Ken
a question came up in reference to installing fake cameras. What's your take on this. I said I thought it would lead to a law suite. John from nj.
***************
Answer
***************
Any fake security device that instills an expectation of protection will result in liability if a real working device would have alerted the injured party with sufficient time to avert the injury.
**************
ASAP-PSAP Program
************
Ken,
In response to Lee Jones 'unintended consequences of ASAP to the PSAP' (Automated Secure Alarm Protocol to the Public Safety Answering Point). I don't think Lee understands the program. Our company, United Central Control ('UCC') is one of three central stations nationwide that participate in the program. The only alarms that are sent electronically to the PSAP are alarms that have been 'pre-qualified' by the central station. In UCC's case, we employ ECV (Enhanced Call Verification where two calls are made to two different phone numbers prior to dispatch) to verify a burglar alarm signal. We are finding that by employing ECV, roughly 85% of all burglar alarm signals that we receive are NOT dispatched to the PSAP. In the world of the auto dialer 30 years ago, every alarm was communicated to the PSAP. HUGE difference.
ASAP to the PSAP also helps the PSAPs. Houston in particular has been able to greatly reduce their call center expenses. The Houston Police department loves the program and has high praise for it. Their call center struggles with hold times due to high turnover and staffing challenges. That is greatly reduced with ASAP to the PSAP. Another benefit is that the data in ASAP to the PSAP is reconciled with the PSAP's data for accuracy. This means virtually no erroneous dispatches due operator error or data entry errors from transposed digits.
I'm sure that many of you read that during the hurricane on the east coast, Vector's ASAP to the PSAP was the only technology that was able to consistently communicate with PSAPs because of downed phone lines (ASAP to the PSAP uses a highly secure network to communicate – not phone lines). This IS NOT setting us back, this is the future of alarm dispatch. Speed, reliability, accuracy and huge cost savings to PSAPs are all hallmarks of the ASAP to the PSAP program. I don't see how any rational person could argue that this is anything but fantastic for the alarm industry and PSAPs.
Mark Matlock - SVP
United Central Control
San Antonio, TX
**************
Response
************
I'm going to respond by asking a question or two, and also by providing some info that I read in the December 2012 edition of Security Sales & Integration [page 13]. For those of you who don't know know all the acronyms, the article lays them out nicely.
The Automated Secure Alarm Protocol [ASAP] was developed and is promoted by the Central Station Alarm Association [CSAA] and Association of Public Safety Communications Officials International [APCO]. The program promotes sending signals to Public Safety Answering Points [PSAPs], utilizing the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System [Nlets].
Central stations that belong to the ASAP project [right now they are looking for charter members - but that opportunity ends January 31, 2012] will be able to send signals to the PSAPs center. The way I understand it, when the central station operator receives an alarm signal and does whatever the operator normally does to weed out false alarms, rather than calling 911 or the designated call number for the authorities, a signal is sent from the central station to the PSAP center and handled at that end. Presumably the PSAP center has the necessary data to respond to the electronic signal. Telephone calls between the central station operator and the 911 operator are eliminated. According to the article UL has approved the process.
My question is, what is the actual application of this process. It's available in Houston, TX and Richmond, VA, but as I understand it other municipalities have not yet embraced the technology and are resisting permitting direct electronic access to their computer systems. I hope those in the know will keep us posted.