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.
A case recently came before the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma involving a PERS system. The estate of decedent filed a claim against the manufacturer of the PERS system and the company that leased and monitored the system in the District Court of Grady County, Okla.
A recent case was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, involving the limitation of liability in an Admiralty case law. Although Admiralty law may differ from the law utilized in the security alarm industry, the principles described in the case are important.
The video surveillance market is evolving with changing technology and greater integration. Integrators such as Sonitrol of Evansville's Chris Dingman are finding these opportunities as the market continues its upward trend. Read more about SDM February Issue.