How did the alarm company end up in court? The furnace at the plaintiff’s residence failed due to low temperature, causing a pipe to burst and resulting in significant property damage. The alarm company apparently did not respond. The plaintiff indicated that her business manager informed the alarm company that the phone number on the agreement was not operational and provided a new call list and corresponding phone numbers. The alarm company disputed that plaintiff or her representative provided the information. After paying its insured for the loss, the plaintiff’s insurance carrier filed this action for subrogation, alleging that the alarm company’s action constituted willful and wanton negligence, which made it exempt from the agreement’s exculpatory clause.
In discussing the case, the court found that the defendant alarm company had an agreement with a residential customer that, among other things, provided that the customer agreed that the alarm company was not responsible for personal injury or other losses alleged to be caused by improper operation or non-operation of the system and/or service, including cases where the system and/or service never functioned, whether due to defects in the system and/or service or the alarm company’s acts or omissions in receiving and responding to alarm signals.