*****************
Question re Florida License
****************
Ken,
    I have a situation where fire system service and repair is being requested by a national service company in my state of FL. The company does not have a license to do work in this state and utilizes qualified companies to take care of the need. This company deals direct with the customer and profits from this arrangement and we do not have any direct relationship with the customer. In my opinion this is against FL licensing statutes and constitutes operating without a proper license. Any comments from you or the group would be appreciated.
Thanks
Anon
******************
Answer
******************
    I do not believe that a non licensed company can satisfy a state license requirement just by using licensed sub contractors.  If the state statute permits that arrangement then it would be permitted.  If silent on the issue, like I would think the statute would be since it is requiring a license, then a national company needs to be licensed in the state.  I believe this to be the case when the national company wants to contract directly with the subscriber and get paid from the subscriber.  
    Permitting an unlicensed company to contract with subscribers in the state and then use licensed sub contractors to install, service and monitor, defeats the purpose of the licensing statute.  Licensing statutes are justified as a method of the state to regulate who conducts certain licensed businesses in the state and also serves as a revenue raising vehicle which presumably offsets the cost of regulating the activities.  By not being licensed a non licensed company impares the state's ability to oversee the business and take action if necessary.  
    Licensed sub contractors who do work for unlicensed companies probably do not violate any regulation, but they do of course aid and abet the unlicensed company compete against licensed companies.
*****************
looking for Connecticut license
*****************
Ken,
    I am looking for an L-5 alarm license qualifier for the State of Connecticut. Do you have someone in mind that I could use?
Thank you for your time and consideration!
Anon
***************
Response
***************
    Anyone with a Connecticut license interested in qualifying for this business?  Contact me to make introduction and prepare the necessary agreement.
    Is there anything wrong with this kind of arrangement?   Not really; not if the qualifier understands what he responsibilities are and performs them.  A qualifier who plans on being completely detached from the alarm operation and just wants to collect a check would be violating the spirit and more than likely letter of the law.  That I don't encourage.  So if you're willing to qualify for another company plan on performing all supervisory chores and taking on the responsibility of a license holder.  Of course you should expect to be paid for this service and properly indemnified.  
**************
Drafting Subscriber Contracts
*************
       In order to succeed in the securities industry it is essential to use well-drafted, enforceable subscriber contracts.  Making sure that the contracts limit liability and protect against subscribers’ breach of the contract can save companies a lot of time and money.  This point was demonstrated in a recent case where an ADT subscriber sought to recover over $800,000 for cash and jewelry allegedly stolen at the subscriber’s store.  The California federal court enforced the liquidated damages clause in ADT’s subscriber agreement as to limit their liability to $1,000.  Had a poorly-written subscriber contract been used here, ADT could potentially be liable for over $800,000 and be tied up in tedious litigation for a long period of time.  
     Although the burglary resulted from a glitch in ADT’s system, the trial court dismissed the case.  In most states, limitation of liability clauses are enforced in cases negligence, but not in cases of gross negligence.  The court explained that the subscriber could not prevail on gross negligence because ADT’s obligations arose solely from the subscriber contract.  The court proceeded to enforce the liquidated damages provision, thus limiting ADT’s damages for any breach of contract to the agreed-upon amount of $1,000.  Upon appeal, the court’s ruling in enforcing the liquidated damages provision was affirmed.
      It is important to remember that courts will enforce clauses in security contracts concerning risk allocation.  Making sure that your company is using a well-drafted contract is essential to limited your liability and protecting your company from unwarranted lawsuits.  More importantly, using quality subscriber contracts can save thousands and thousands of dollars over time.
Jesse Kirschenbaum
Law Clerk
Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum
**************
Response
*************
    I guess I have to remind my young nephew aspiring to be a lawyer [one more year of law school left]  that he should remind everyone that the best place to get a proper alarm contract is at www.alarmcontracts.com