In a recent case before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, an interesting question arose as to whether the defendant, the company providing security, could be responsible for a decrease in value of the property because of a loss that the plaintiff contended was the fault of the security company.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California recently ordered the preliminary certification of a conditional class action settlement involving various California wage and hours laws.
A recent case decided by the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire did not involve an alarm company, but relied on an alarm company decision in granting a motion for summary judgment.
In Michigan, a group of plaintiffs filed an action against the defendant security company claiming that the security company violated the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay the plaintiffs time and a half for the time they worked in excess of 40 hours per work week. The defendant security company filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.
A question that frequently arises is the rights of a tenant against an alarm company where the tenant has no agreement with the alarm company but the alarm company provides service pursuant to an agreement with the landlord.
With approximately 20 percent penetration into homes, professionally monitored security systems that are now interactive and connected have a lot of room to grow — but many others also seek this opportunity. Read more stories in August Issue 2017.