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
****************************
Lawsuit against Netwatch for video monitoring error dismissed
August 20, 2026
********************
Lawsuit against Netwatch for video monitoring error dismissed
********************
I am not aware of any interactive video monitoring lawsuits; this may be the first. There seems to be operator error by not recognizing an intruder at a car dealership who ended up stealing a car and causing damage. A federal court in Utah recently issued what may become an important case for alarm companies providing video monitoring, video verification, remote guarding, talk-down service, and other interactive monitoring services. In Garff Enterprises, Inc. v. Netwatch North America an intruder broke into an automobile dealership. The monitoring system detected the intrusion and transmitted alarm conditions to the monitoring center. The monitoring specialist reviewed the images but mistakenly concluded that the person was authorized custodial staff. The alarms were isolated. No voice-down warning was issued. No customer notification was made. The intruder allegedly stole a Ferrari and caused more than $300,000 in damages.
The Judge described how the service was supposed to work and what was done wrong:
“Netwatch's security monitoring system operates in the following manner. When Netwatch's video monitoring software detects motion within a customer's building, it triggers an “alarm condition.”6 The system then creates a GIF—a collection of three sequential still frame photos from the camera associated with the alarm—which is sent to an offsite Netwatch Monitoring Specialist.7 The Monitoring Specialist then reviews the GIF and determines a proper response.8 If the Monitoring Specialist observes the alarm condition was a false alarm or triggered by an authorized person, such as a night janitor, the Monitoring Specialist will “isolate” the alarm for a period of ten minutes.9 Isolating the alarm temporarily “turn[s] off the alarm[ ]” for the Monitoring Specialist.10 This allows the Monitoring Specialists to focus on detecting intrusions elsewhere and not be overwhelmed by false alarms.11 However, if the Monitoring Specialist detects a potential threat, they will review the live camera feed.12 Should the live feed show an intruder on the premises, the Monitoring Specialist performs a “voice down” where they order the unauthorized person—through installed speakers within the premises—to stop and informs the intruder they are notifying law enforcement.13 The Monitoring Specialist will then contact a list of individuals previously designated by the client on its “Protocol Form” and inform them of the intrusion.”
The customer sued for breach of contract, negligence, and gross negligence. The facts may have supported errors by the operator:
“On July 23, 2023, an intruder entered Garff's downtown location by breaking a glass door.20 The Netwatch monitoring system triggered multiple alarms for the intrusion.21 However, instead of responding to the intrusion by issuing a voice down and contacting the proper individuals pursuant to Garff's protocol, the Monitoring Specialist isolated the alarms for 10 minutes.22 The Monitoring Specialist later stated he had mistakenly determined the intruder was authorized custodial staff because the man “was not dressed as a normal intruder.”23 Garff alleges the intruder stole a 2019 Ferrari 488 Pista owned by a Garff customer and damaged several other exotic luxury vehicles in the showroom.24 The intrusion caused damages in excess of $300,000.25.”
Netwatch’s contract with the Plaintiff had the protective provisions we expect in this industry. The Judge focused on the “no guarantee and no liability” language, but most importantly the Plaintiff did not oppose dismissal of the breach of contract cause of action, deciding to rely on the negligence cause of action.
The negligence and gross negligence claims failed because of the economic loss rule. The economic loss rule is one of the most important legal doctrines protecting alarm companies and monitoring centers. It is also one of the least understood.
The concept is simple:
When parties enter into a contract and one party claims that the other failed to perform the very service required by the contract, the claim belongs in contract, not tort.
In other words, if the complaint is that the monitoring company failed to monitor properly, failed to notify properly, failed to dispatch properly, failed to issue a voice-down properly, failed to supervise properly, or otherwise failed to perform its contractual obligations, then the customer generally should not be permitted to simply relabel the claim as negligence and avoid the contract terms.
When there is a written contract the alarm company’s duty to perform is pursuant to contract, and the consequences of not performing or performing in substandard way is a breach of the contract, not negligence. In order for there to be a negligence cause of action there needs to be an independent duty apart from the contract. The general principle of tort law that every person must act reasonably under the circumstances is not enough to create a separate duty when there is a contract in place for the very acts or failure to act that allegedly caused a loss.
This was a video monitoring agreement; the duty arose from the contract, and the contract governed that relationship. Had there been no contract or the contract was successfully contested the decision could have been very different.
The Commercial All in One and Residential All in One cover video monitoring. There is also a separate agreement for Camera Service [if that’s all you do], Video Doorman and Virtual G uard Service which is video and audio remote gate service.
A copy of the decision is below.
***********************
United States District Court, D. Utah.
GARFF ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
NETWATCH NORTH AMERICA, a California Corporation, Defendant.
Case No. 2:24-cv-00603-RJS-DAO
Filed 08/07/2026
Attorneys and Law Firms
Michael L. Ford, Strong & Hanni, Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiff Garff Enterprises, Inc..
Meghan A. Sheridan, Hall & Evans, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant Netwatch North America.
Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
ROBERT J. SHELBY United States District Judge
*1 Before the court is Defendant Netwatch North America's Motion for Summary Judgment.1 For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND2
Defendant Netwatch North America is a California company that sells security monitoring products and services.3 Plaintiff Garff Enterprises is a Utah corporation that sells automobiles.4 On May 9, 2022, Garff entered a Services Agreement with Netwatch to provide security video monitoring services at Garff's luxury car dealership located in downtown Salt Lake City, Utah.5
Netwatch's security monitoring system operates in the following manner. When Netwatch's video monitoring software detects motion within a customer's building, it triggers an “alarm condition.”6 The system then creates a GIF—a collection of three sequential still frame photos from the camera associated with the alarm—which is sent to an offsite Netwatch Monitoring Specialist.7 The Monitoring Specialist then reviews the GIF and determines a proper response.8 If the Monitoring Specialist observes the alarm condition was a false alarm or triggered by an authorized person, such as a night janitor, the Monitoring Specialist will “isolate” the alarm for a period of ten minutes.9 Isolating the alarm temporarily “turn[s] off the alarm[ ]” for the Monitoring Specialist.10 This allows the Monitoring Specialists to focus on detecting intrusions elsewhere and not be overwhelmed by false alarms.11 However, if the Monitoring Specialist detects a potential threat, they will review the live camera feed.12 Should the live feed show an intruder on the premises, the Monitoring Specialist performs a “voice down” where they order the unauthorized person—through installed speakers within the premises—to stop and informs the intruder they are notifying law enforcement.13 The Monitoring Specialist will then contact a list of individuals previously designated by the client on its “Protocol Form” and inform them of the intrusion.14 The Agreement provides Netwatch “will, without warranty, make reasonable efforts to follow the Protocol for your Premises.”15
In addition to defining Netwatch's and Garff's obligations, the Agreement also includes disclaimer provisions limiting Netwatch's liability for actions arising out of the contract. Among these disclaimers, the Agreement provides that Netwatch does not “represent or warrant that the system [or] service ... will detect or deter all burglaries ... or that it will in all cases perform as intended.”16 The Agreement explicitly states Netwatch does not “guarantee that [it] will always be able to decipher, understand, interpret, respond to, and manage the video or images received correctly under all circumstances.”17 It additionally provides:
If we or our agents or employees are found liable for loss, damage, injury, illness, or death of any kind whatsoever from our failure to perform any of our obligations under this Agreement ... then our liability is limited to (1) $1,500, or (2) a sum equal to 12 times the monthly monitoring fee in effect at the time of the incident, whichever is less. This is not a penalty. This is your only remedy regardless of the legal theory used to find us liable.18
The Agreement further explains, “[i]f we were to have any liability greater than that agreed to by you ..., we could not and would not provide the System or service, and we could not provide the System or service at the rates contained here.”19
On July 23, 2023, an intruder entered Garff's downtown location by breaking a glass door.20 The Netwatch monitoring system triggered multiple alarms for the intrusion.21 However, instead of responding to the intrusion by issuing a voice down and contacting the proper individuals pursuant to Garff's protocol, the Monitoring Specialist isolated the alarms for 10 minutes.22 The Monitoring Specialist later stated he had mistakenly determined the intruder was authorized custodial staff because the man “was not dressed as a normal intruder.”23 Garff alleges the intruder stole a 2019 Ferrari 488 Pista owned by a Garff customer and damaged several other exotic luxury vehicles in the showroom.24 The intrusion caused damages in excess of $300,000.25
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 19, 2024, Garff filed the Complaint against Netwatch in Utah state court for damages arising out of the break-in.26 The Complaint asserts claims for breach of the Agreement, negligence, and gross negligence.27 Netwatch removed the action to this court on August 20, 2024.28 On January 30, 2026, Netwatch filed its Motion seeking Summary Judgment on all claims.29 The court heard oral argument on July 16, 2026.30 The Motion is fully briefed and ripe for review.31
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”32 A dispute is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”33 A fact is material if, under the governing substantive law, it could “affect the outcome of the suit.”34 “The movant bears the initial burden to show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.”35 The court “view[s] the evidence and make[s] all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”36 At summary judgment, the court does not “weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter,” but rather “determine[s] whether there is a genuine issue for trial.”37
ANALYSIS
*3 Netwatch seeks summary judgment on Garff's three claims: breach of the Agreement, negligence, and gross negligence.38 The court considers each claim in turn.
I. Breach of Services Agreement
Netwatch first seeks summary judgment on Garff's claim for breach of the Agreement.39 Garff alleges Netwatch breached the Agreement by failing to detect the intrusion and failing to trigger an alarm condition.40 Netwatch argues summary judgment is appropriate because the Agreement explicitly states Netwatch did not guarantee that it would always correctly interpret and respond to the video it receives, and that the Agreement allocates the risk of an improper intrusion response to Garff.41
Garff does not respond to Netwatch's breach of the Agreement arguments in its Opposition brief, which addresses only the negligence and gross negligence causes of action.42 When a party fails to respond to an argument, it “tacitly concede[s],” and the court will not serve as an advocate “to survive the present Motion.”43
Because Garff does not dispute the Agreement explicitly disavows any guarantee that Netwatch interpret and respond to an alarm condition correctly,44 the court GRANTS summary judgment to Netwatch on the claim for breach of the Agreement.45
II. The Economic Loss Rule Bars Garff's Tort Claims.
Netwatch next argues summary judgment is appropriate on Garff's negligence and gross negligence claims.46 Garff alleges Netwatch breached its duty of care to provide intrusion detection services in a reasonable manner, failing to observe even slight care in monitoring the premises of Garff's downtown location the night of the intrusion.47 Netwatch argues Garff is precluded by Utah's economic loss rule from recovering damages here under theories of negligence.48 The court agrees.
Under Utah law, to prevail on a claim for negligence, Garff must establish Netwatch owed it a duty of care, which it then breached.49 A defendant commits gross negligence when it “fail[s] to observe even slight care, it is carelessness or recklessness to a degree that shows utter indifference to the consequences that may result.”50 However, Utah's economic loss rule “prevents recovery of economic damages under a theory of tort liability when a contract covers the subject matter of the dispute.”51 Under the rule, if a “tort claim and [a] contract claim overlap[,]” that is, “when the conflict that arises between parties to a contract is regarding the subject matter of the contract[,]” then the “contractual relationship controls, and parties are not permitted to assert actions in tort.”52 The purpose of the economic loss rule is to “prevent disproportionate liability and allow parties to allocate risk by contract.”53 The rule “marks the fundamental boundary between contract law, which protects expectancy interests created through agreement between the parties, and tort law, which protects individuals and their property from physical harm by imposing a duty of reasonable care.”54
*4 An exception to the economic loss rule applies when a plaintiff alleges a breach of an independent duty “separate and distinct from any contractual duty existing between the parties.”55 An independent duty is one that “does not overlap with those contemplated in a contract.”56 “Whether the economic loss rule applies depends on whether a duty exists independent of any contractual obligations between the parties.”57 Garff argues, in addition to Netwatch's contractual duties, the company also owed an independent duty to protect Garff's property under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323.58 Utah adopts § 323, which recognizes a “duty to exercise reasonable care on the part of one who undertakes to render services.”59 The Restatement (Second) of Torts provides:
One who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of the other's person or things, is subject to liability to the other for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to perform his undertaking, if
(a) his failure to exercise such care increases the risk of such harm, or
(b) the harm is suffered because of the other's reliance upon the undertaking.60
To survive the limitations of the economic loss rule, a duty arising under § 323 must be “separate and distinct” from the contractual duty created by the Agreement.61
The court concludes that any standard of care owed by Netwatch under § 323 is not separate and distinct from the obligation it owed under the Agreement. Here, the Agreement created a contractual obligation for Netwatch to protect Garff's property through providing CCTV monitoring services.62 In practice, this is the same duty § 323 imposes on Netwatch to exercise reasonable care in performing CCTV monitoring to protect Garff's property.
Garff seeks to differentiate the duties by pointing to a provision of the Agreement that details Netwatch's procedures upon receiving an alarm condition,63 which states Netwatch will “make reasonable efforts to follow the Protocol for [Garff's] Premises.”64 Neither party has produced the Protocol for the downtown location.65 Garff argues in the absence of a Protocol, this phrase creates a duty of reasonable care under Restatement § 323, which is governed by tort law.66 Garff compares this duty to the duty in DCR, Inc. v. Peak Alarm Co.67 In DCR, an alarm company failed to disclose to a purchaser that its alarm system was susceptible to a simple and well-known deactivating technique which allowed burglars to render the system inoperative.68 Additionally, the alarm company knew both the risk and “an easy, inexpensive way to protect its alarm systems against the risk of such deactivation.”69 The Utah Supreme Court held the negligence claim against the alarm company could proceed despite the contract's liability limit (which only applied to contract-law claims) because the “defendant's duty to warn plaintiff of the vulnerability of its alarm system [did] not originate from any promise contained within the service contract itself[,]” but was rather an independent duty separate from its contracted obligations.70
*5 But DCR is inapposite. As a preliminary matter, DCR was decided 13 years before the Utah Supreme Court adopted the economic loss rule in Utah.71 Though the Utah Supreme Court has not explicitly overruled DCR, it is uncertain whether a tort claim under such circumstances today would survive the economic loss rule.72 At oral argument, Garff maintained that a ruling in favor of Netwatch finding a lack of a separate and distinct duty of care under § 323 necessitates overruling DCR.73 The court disagrees. Assuming the continued validity of the decision, the facts here are substantially different from those in DCR to make the latter inapplicable regardless of whether it is still good law. The negligence claim in DCR did not turn on whether the alarm company properly installed and maintained the alarm system as contracted. Rather, the claim arose from whether the defendants breached a seller's general duty to inform a purchaser of known defects in its product.74 Such a duty did “not originate from any promise contained within the service contract itself.”75 By contrast, the “independent duty” Garff asserts here is the performance of the service at the center of the contract. The Agreement states Netwatch will make reasonable efforts to follow the Protocol for Garff.76 Netwatch's obligation to exercise reasonable care concerns its performance of the very service it was contracted to provide: security video monitoring of Garff's downtown location. Accordingly, Netwatch's duty to exercise reasonable care in monitoring Garff's downtown location is inherently contractual, not one “separate and distinct” from the contract.77 DCR is therefore inapplicable.
Recall that the purpose of the economic loss rule is to “prevent disproportionate liability and allow parties to allocate risk by contract.”78 The parties here did exactly that. The Agreement explicitly allocated the risk of a failure to prevent a burglary to Garff by stating Netwatch does not “represent or warrant that the system [or] service ... will detect or deter all burglaries ... or that it will in all cases perform as intended.”79 In fact, Netwatch acknowledged the importance of allocating risk in this manner by plainly stating that if it were to have any liability greater than specifically designated in the Agreement, Netwatch “could not and would not provide the System or service, and [it] could not provide the System or service at the rates contained [in the Agreement].”80 The parties reinforced this understanding in Section 8 of the Agreement, styled “Limitation of Liability,” stating in part “[t]his Agreement is not an insurance policy or a substitute for an insurance policy, and the amounts you pay to us are not insurance premiums. You must obtain all property, life, health, disability, business interruption, or other necessary insurance.”81 Allowing the tort claims to proceed here despite the clear allocation of risk would undermine the fundamental purpose of the economic loss rule.82
Because Garff fails to establish that Netwatch owes a separate and distinct duty of care apart from those agreed upon in the contract, the contractual relationship controls. The economic loss rule bars Garff's tort claims. Therefore, the court grants Netwatch summary judgment on Garff's negligence and gross negligence claims.83
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Netwatch is entitled to summary judgment on all of Garff's claims, and its Motion is GRANTED.84 Netwatch's Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's Expert is DENIED as MOOT.85 The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.
*6 SO ORDERED this 7th day of August, 2026.
All Citations
Slip Copy, 2026 WL 2280020
Footnotes omitted
****************************
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