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 ****************************** More comment on non-working cameras preclude insurance claim coverage July 9, 2025 ********************** More comment on non-working cameras preclude insurance claim coverage from article on June 25, 2025 *********************** Ken, Your article preface has the correct direction for the alarm company to assist as an "Alarm Expert" for their customer. The fact that there was a suit filed to compel coverage leads me to assume that the loss was considerable. You rightfully point out that years ago to obtain insurance in a jewelry store in NYC you needed to have an alarm system installed and as you say "back in those days" it was the insurance company as the AHJ and specified that the system had to meet the UL adopted Standard, which gave the alarm company options as to what equipment to use but must meet or exceed the detection goals. On the fire side of your reply, the same holds true though the AHJ probably is both the insurance company and the government entity, but again neither of which is specifying brands, quantity or placements because the NFPA Standards does that. My question as an "expert" in this case would have been, "What did the carrier request as far as coverage from the alarm system?" followed by "What if anything did the Alarm Company provide as documentation for what security measures were installed that constituted the "system" that the carrier accepted for coverage or to issue discounts?" Finally, if I were the "expert" on behalf of the alarm customer I would have opined if the cameras were part of the detection system or not. I estimate that 97% of all installed cameras are not part of the detection system but I believe that this is also a trend that is changing. Today it is more commonplace that the cameras can be viewed remotely but the percentage of professional monitoring is minuscule by comparison and is changing as well. As an industry we can not satisfy a moving target when the AHJ (the carrier in this case) is not willing to specify what is and is not an alarm system, typically using the ANSI Standard as a measure of compliance. Bart A. Didden, President U.S.A. Central Station Alarm Corp. Port Chester, NY Milford, CT St. Paul, MN Pasco, WA 877-872-1266 ************************ Response ************************ Thanks for your expertise; appreciated as usual. In the case reviewed I believe that when the carrier was informed about the "security system" the cameras were included in the description of equipment. While the carrier may not have provided the specifications for the system, having been presented with the system description along with the application for insurance, the carrier could reasonably take the position, which it did, that the cameras were part of the "security system" when it decided if it was going to write the insurance and what premium it was charging. It then made that system a condition of coverage, which it had a right to do; the customer agreed to it. This is obviously not something the alarm company did wrong. It was the customer's obligation to keep the system functional and customer should have called for service. This might have been a more interesting case if the alarm company didn't have a Kirschenbaum Contract TM and included "maintenance" of the system in the contract or proposal or whatever it used. Then, arguably the alarm company failed to keep the system operational, not causing the loss but causing the loss of insurance. Maybe the alarm company gave an "Insurance Certificate" that specified the equipment, and perhaps in that represented that it was doing the maintenance or repairs to keep it operational. Alarm companies have all kinds of ways to get themselves in trouble by agreeing to contract terms. K&K offers an Insurance Certificate that won't get you into trouble; order it now. The customer should have also had some counseling on the conditions of its insurance policy, specifically the "conditions precedent" to coverage when a claim is presented. While you would think the broker, if there was one, would point it out, the customer could have sought counsel from an attorney and asked about that particular issue. That would be another article for perhaps a different audience. ******************* STANDARD FORM AGREEMENTS: To order up to date Standard Form 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. *********************** WEBINARS: https://www.kirschenbaumesq.com/page/alarm-webinars *********************** ALARM ARTICLES: You can always read our Articles on our website at www.kirschenbaumesq.com/page/alarm-articles updated daily ******************** Wondering how much your alarm company is worth? Click here: https://www.kirschenbaumesq.com/page/what-is-my-alarm-company-worth *********************** THE ALARM EXCHANGE - the alarm industries leading classified and business exchange - updated daily ************************* PODCASTS: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ken-kirschenbaum-presents/id1794851477 ************************* Getting on our email list / 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. ************************** 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
