Question:

Ken,
    Have a question concerning the liability involved for an installing
company of a fire system installed in a commercial application.  If a
system was installed (according to code) at a time prior to when current
code was in force what liability, if any, does the dealer have in the
event of a loss?  Is the dealer obligated to inform the customer that
their system may not conform to current code?  Is the dealer's liability
reduced if they inform the customer and the customer declines, in
writing, to upgrade their system?  Do these liability issues change if
the original dealer is acquired by another alarm company?  I am
interested in your thoughts and opinion on this issue.  Thanks.

Answer:

This is a quick answer.  If anyone has any other comments let me know.  Absent
an on going relationship a fire alarm company has no obligation to inform a
customer that code has changed.  If you are monitoring the system and
inspecting (NYC) then you would be required to bring the system up to code, at
the customer's expense, or stop monitoring.

       Here are a few comments to the fire alarm code change Q&A email.


Hi Ken:
Here is a simple thing I do on EVERY Inspection report in my stat of NJ. I make
the first phrase of the inspection report "Inspected previously approved fire
alarm for functionality". This puts the customer on notice that we make no
representation on the adequacy of the system since we are disclosing that the
system has been inspected and approved by the AHJ. When we forward the copy of
the inspection to the local official it also puts them on the same notice.
After that phrase we list the parts of the system not working if any.

Charlie
Fire & Security Specialists
==================

Hi Ken:

    Fire alarm codes change often and rapidly. In NYC once a system is
approved, it generally does not have to be continuously brought up to current
code. It is usually "grandfathered" so long as nothing is changed in the
system. Once it is touched (i.e. revised or expanded) it then has to be brought
to current codes. There are exceptions, usually having to do with federal
requirements for handicap, but generally it can stay as built until other
changes are needed. That is my understanding of NYC codes. I don't know if the
maintenance firm is required to notify the customer of code changes, but it
would be good business practice to communicate with customers and possibly get
additional work.


Mitch Cohen
Paramount Security Group

=============================

Ken, your answer also applies in the State of Florida.

==========================

Ken

I do not believe that monitoring of a system or maintaining (including testing)
carries any legal obligation to inform owners of that system that new codes are
in play unless such statute is retroactive in nature.  Absent any requirement
obligating the company involved to so notify the owner there can be no such
obligation.


Generally in the United States, a statutory change is required such as just
happened in New York City.  The reference Standard was changed on December 10,
2001 removing former requirements and implementing new ones.  Older requirement
utilized NFPA 72 E, 1989 edition and NFPA 72, 1990 edition.  The new
requirements now in effect reference NFPA 72, 1993.  These changes have been
distributed to current Empire AFAA members when so were requested.  All work in
progress, formerly filed and completed had to meet the earlier requirements.
The new requirements, with increased specificity and significant modification
are now in effect.  This happens around the country on a regular basis.  Were
there a requirement to change each time a code modification is made, the Fire
Alarm Industry and building owners would be in a perpetual state of change.

Many jurisdictions only require compliance with new code when substantial
changes are made to the building.  At that time possible compliance with new
requirements would be necessary.

Monitoring, monitoring or inspecting emphatically does not require notice be
given to the owner.  In fact, often times testing requirements are based solely
upon those in effect at such time when the system is installed UNLESS new
testing requirements are also imposed by the local jurisdiction.  Many systems
are being tested, inspected and maintained with requirements 20, 30 or even
more years old that that.


Respectfully
James M. Mundy, Jr.
CPP, CDT,  CSI, CFPS, SFPE, SET
President, Empire AFAA
1594 Old Mill Road
Wantagh, New York
             11793-3237
Tel:  (516)  783-9020
Fax: (516) 783-9081

============================

Ken
In regard to an approved Monitoring facility in NYC. They have no
responsibility to the subscriber other than the operation of the
transmitting device reporting the fire alarm condition to the central.
The central station's role in monitoring does not extend beyond the
operation of the transmitter and the condition ofthe phones, radios etc.

I would be happy to discuss this with you further. Call if you need to know
more. Ron



RON PETRARCA
631-271-4000