Question:
Hello Ken:
Well, after 25 years of trying to figure out why insurance companies do not
require a monitored fire system, I believe our time has finally come. In
my area (Washington, DC metro), I am getting more and more calls from
clients requesting a "monitored" fire system (due to a mandatory
requirement of some of the insurance companies to maintain continuing
homeowners insurance). My issue is this:
Since the insurance companies will refuse to commit to any requirements,
other than a "monitored fire system", and I as "the expert" am required to
design a system to meet their abstract requirements, I have come up with a
position that as long as the client signs off on my statement that this is
a SUPPLEMENTAL fire system and may not meet current NFPA or other
jurisdictional codes, I would be OK if litigation ever came up. However, I
have this fear that in the event of a claim, everyone who can will point
the finger at me, the company because the fire system did not meet codes
and the client refused to spend the appropriate dollars (translated into
profitable sales for our industry). Additionally, in most all cases, there
is a smoke detection (the primary) system which was required to be
installed and permitted when the residence was built. Again, I am selling
a SUPPLEMENTAL fire system, issuing a certificate of insurance as to that
fact and want to be sure that I will be covered if I am dragged into any
litigation. Of course, the standard monitoring contracts are being signed
as well as the waiver.
I equate this as being similar to the mass market alarm systems where
companies were going in and selling one door contact when there were 4
doors to cover. Are we better off not doing a supplemental fire system if
we can't do it according to code?
What is your opinion?
Thanks for your time.
Robert
--------------------------
Answer:
Dear Robert:
From a litigation standpoint I think you are taking an unnecessary
risk. You make a mistake equating a fire alarm system with a burglar alarm
system. My experience is that the courts and legislature treat fire far
more seriously and regulate fire. I haven't seen any legislation governing
installation, service or monitoring of burglar alarm systems [other than
aimed at limiting alarm company contract rights], and as you well know,
most municipalities have regulations regarding smoke and fire alarm
installations, service and monitoring.
NFPA sets the standards that many municipalities adopt in their
building codes. When a "fire alarm" system is called for and you install
one, or something that looks like one, I don't think you will be able to
rely on your "supplemental" system. As the alarm expert you are required
to install a proper system. Perhaps a good analogy is a car dealer
removing safety bags to reduce the price of the car so he can sell it. I
doubt any disclaimer of liability would hold up.
I understand that the alarm market is very competitive. However, my
recommendation is that you don't circumvent fire installation requirements
or industry standards as you know them to be.
------------------------------------------
Comments on fire installation Q&A:
my understanding of supplemental means the original codes have been met by
the builder of a residential structure and we as fire alarm contractors
are adding something additional to the fire alarm system and as long as it
is installed properly "NFPA" it's OK to exceed existing codes ---hank luks;
controllor security systems
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Robert,
You are killing me. Surely you are kidding. Your one of the reason my
liability insurance is so high. If a customer calls you to install a fire
alarm system and you accept $1 from them you are 100% liable and owe the
customer a duty to install a code compliant system. I refer you to NFPA 72
residential. Get involved in some continued education for fire
installation and get your self a good attorney. I recommend Ken
Kirschenbaum.
Somebody throw me a bone.
Eddie Harden
NICET #106176
++++++++++++++++++++++
more comment on fire installations
Go to ADT's site (likely the same will be true for Pro One and Brinks and a
ton of others) you can get a smoke detector added to your system for $75 or
$50. I promise you they do not get the AHJ to review it, nor do they make
a judgment as to whether the premise complies (or needs to comply) to the
current or prior NFPA or local code. These are the realities of everyday
competitive pressures.
We are concerned about this because we are concerned about the downside
risk, in the event that all the planets align (we sell a smoke, there is a
fire, it doesn't work, someone is injured or property damage, etc) and we
are sued. Are we all absolutely certain that every account we acquired has
no smokes hanging off burg panels in homes with no other AC/battery smoke
detectors? The larger companies can lose in court and still be in
business. For most of us if we lose a serious lawsuit, we could be out of
business. Our carrier can write a check for the amount of their coverage
and walk away.
We all have the sales reps who actually want to write on the contract, "The
subscriber has been advised that this system does not comply with NFPA
codes" so he can sell one smoke detector for an old multi-level house with
several bedrooms. How many times have we had a sales rep ask if they get
the AHJ to sign off can they install a system that does not comply?
I agree with Ken, we are looking for trouble if we do these "almost fire
systems"
Eddie, I think our liability insurance is high in large part because we are
lumped in with other contractors who face construction defect lawsuits.
(Thanks to Kenny's attorney friends!)
Anthony J. (Tony) DiVento, CFO
Sentry Watch, Inc.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
More comment on fire installations
Ken,
I have never written to you before and honestly did not even
know about your position in the law community till I recently
was forwarded this ongoing forum of what to and what not to do
with fire and security. I am a NICET level IV engineer who is
working towards his Professional Engineers License and have
been working in the field of life/safety for about 10 years now.
Having been factory trained on EST,FCI,Notifier,Edwards,Simplex
and Gamewell not to mention too many non-proprietary products.
I have to chuckle at what some of these people are saying. My
majority of work has been in the San Francisco Bay Area where
all fire systems must be UL Certificated for installation. In addition
no combination panels are allowed. AHJ’s there are adamant about not
allowing any mixture of fire and security on the same platform. Is it
not obvious to the fire/life safety and security community that these are and
always be two distinct and different services? Burg does not and will
never carry the liability, accountability or consequences that come from
their installations compared to fire. There is no inspection, drawings,
engineering, or level of competency required during the installation. I guess we should
be grateful for the required background check for the purposes of
installation. As far as modifying any system for fire alarm devices, always consult your
local AHJ. Get his or her statements in writing whenever possible, even on typical
“grandfather clauses” that have become so famous. Adding a smoke here or
there could be the detriment to your company as many have pointed out already in
this forum.
If I had my druthers I would have the new NFPA guidelines throw out
the whole concept of combo systems. They are too dangerous and continue to
promote the mixing of industries.
Thanks for listening!
Ken Pordes
Project Manager/Engineer – Fire Life/Safety Division
Eagle Security Systems