Question re Manufacturer's defective products and your lost labor
***************
Ken,
I am writing to share our experiences with a product being marketed under the trade name The Whip. In our opinion this product was manufactured to less than ideal standards creating nuisance false alarms. The Manufacture finally admitted to me the units were not built to the standards they set. Do I have any recourse to go after lost profits, as a result of a manufacture defect? The manufacture did replace the units twice at no charge, but from the labor standpoint we are very upside down on this job. Below is a synopsis of our experience.
The concept of a low cost way to detect theft of HVAC components was very timely for us. One of the Elementary Schools we protect just had 24 HVAC units damaged and internal components stolen. We installed Whips on all 24 units. Within days the false alarms started accumulating.
After contacting the Manufacture, it was determined the Whips should be relocated to high side service valve in lieu of the low side. This resulted in no reduction in the false alarms. After again contacting the Manufacture, it was recommended that the wireless transmitters we were using for each Whip be relocated to an area of less vibration and not mounted directly on the HVAC unit. This resulted in no reduction in false alarms. To be on the safe side, we then separated the signals sent by the wireless transmitters so we could differentiate between tamper and alarm. The false alarms were not being generated from the tamper switches. We contacted the Manufacture again and this time they agreed to send us replacement Whips citing a concern that maybe the existing Whips had defective pressure switches. Replacement resulted in no reduction in false alarms.
At this point it was becoming apparent the Manufacture was out of ideas. We removed several whips from the system and brought them back to our shop for testing. After simulating the pressure of an HVAC unit, we observed varying degrees of resistance across the two flying leads that make up the alarm circuit for the control panel we utilized. The next step was to literally cut one in half. There are eight flying leads coming out the backside of a Whip. One is common; the other seven are connected to resistors of different values. There are 14 connections inside the sealed section of PVC pipe; none were soldered. They were all simply twisted together. We contacted the Manufacture again. Another 24 Whips were shipped and installed. At this point they appear to be fairly stable.
Best Regards,
Mark Schrieber
Protech Security & Electronics Inc.
Merced CA
****************
Answer
***************
My first jury trial, circa 1979, was against an alarm manufacturer [and I don't recall who]. I represented an alarm company who had to continuously replace defective equipment and sued for its lost labor. I won that trial and the alarm company was awarded something like $40,000 [I really don't recall the numbers either]. My client was happy.
Products come with Limited Warranties which typically exclude consequential damages and call for replacement or repair of the product. Manufacturers think that as long as they keep fixing or replacing the product you should keep donating your labor to remove and reinstall the equipment. I think this is generally accepted as standard practice. But what about a manufacturer who places a product in the stream of commerce knowing that it has defects [and I am not suggesting that is the case with the Whips]? I think those manufacturers should, and can be, held accountable for identifiable damages, such as excessive labor charges.
To protect yourself in this type of situation you will need to very carefully document the product's general unsuitability and carefully keep records of your labor and other costs and lost revenue. Establishing that the manufacturer had knowledge of the defective product, or should have known, will be another hurdle you have to get over. I think the theory of law would be tantamount to a fraud action. The manufacturer knew or should have known that the product was defective and otherwise unsuitable, and therefore the damages should be different in kind that what a Limited Warranty made provide for. Fraud must be pleaded with particularity, and the burden of prove is higher than preponderance of the evidence, it has to be "clear and convincing". [which I suppose is somewhere in between tipping the scales and beyond a reasonable doubt]
With all the social forums out there I suspect that manufacturers are going to be more deliberate and careful responding to customer complaints and with the quality of the products.
Anyone have any experience with this product or any others you'd like to discuss?
PS - anonymous postings on this topic won't be accepted.
*******************
comments on the Telguard question from March 29 2012 [see below for the question]
*******************
Re: The Teleguard TG7 series equipment I would need to know what type of problems Mike M is having. The problems that my company is experiencing is comm. Fail from time to time but our systems are in remote sites and we have the same problem with our UL burg systems in the same area.
Mike K
From NJ
***************
Ken,
Would Mike M. care to share the issues he is experiencing with the Telguard product. I have several of the the TG7FS radios out there without seeing any issues. It would help to know what is happening or not happening that is causing him headaches.
Bob W.
**************
To Mike M. and Issue with Telguard:
We’ve been running into the exact same issues and have heard nothing but crickets from Telular (Telguard’s parent company). They continue to play the blame game claiming that, “if the cable goes out at my home I can’t call Sony or VIZIO to get a credit on the cable service.“
The problem I have with their argument is that we also use another communicator that also uses cellular as the primary and secondary paths for communication. This competitor of Telular never has the same issues, which lead us to believe the problem was with Telular, not with the cellular clearing houses as Telular claims. In fact, we have pin pointed the issues, and they happen to coincide with every system upgrade they do internally. So in response to their argument, that would be the equivalent of Sony pushing out a software upgrade on your TV every couple weeks without warning and it causes your cable to go out. We have since removed all of the installations where we had cellular as the primary and secondary and replaced with this new vendor. In the past 4-6 weeks since we’ve removed the Telguard units, we have yet to have problems.
I drafted a letter yesterday that I plan on sending to their North American Sales Director explaining that if they can’t work with their partners to develop a solution then we’ll simply look to other providers that can and will. I suggest you do the same.
Sean in STL
******************
Ken,
Great timing! Please forward this email to Mike M. below. I am considering a new bid using Telguard equipment (have never used it previously) in the new few days. I would like to know what are the issues he is having before I make a major purchase / commitment to use said equipment.
Do you have any other feedback you could send me regarding fire alarm wireless radios? My company is having to jump in the ring very fast because I have competitors that are practically giving away free radios (AES) to get my monitoring contracts.
Rich Norat President,
Southfire Systems Inc.
***************
We need to know what kind of "issues" Mike W. is having with the telgard to comment!
no "service"? equipment auto "rebooting"? equiment "locking up"? "weak signal"? etc, etc.
Greg
**************
Regarding Telguard,
I would inquire more information. The biggest mistake installing tg-7fs cells as a sole path is not adhering to the higher signal strength requirement. On regular tg-7 installs it is recommended to have a min 80db. But when sole path feature is used they require 90db (3 leds) due to the increased supervision. Is this strictly being adhered to? Is third led bouncing off and on or steady? What kind of problems specifically are you having with all of those units?
That's my two cents worth.
Thank You,
Tony Huffstutter
Avery Security LLC
Wentzville, MO
****************
Telguard issue - I am sure that you have checked with Telguard tech support and the signal strength needs to be at least 3 bars if not you may require adding an antennae.
George Nuttle
Security Professionals
Vancouver, WA
******************
HERE IS THE ORIGINAL TELGUARD QUESTION sent out on March 29, 2012
***************
soliciting experience with Telguard
*************
Ken,
Would you ask your network of folks in the alarm industry to comment on issues we have experienced with the Telguard equipment.
The equipment in question is the Telgaurd Full Data TG7FS(utilized as primary and secondary backup on fire panels).
We have experienced equipment issues on 23 installations now for 6 months.
Thanks so much,
Mike M.