This website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.
This Website Uses Cookies
By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to our cookie policy. Learn More
This website requires certain cookies to work and uses other cookies to help you have the best experience. By visiting this website, certain cookies have already been set, which you may delete and block. By closing this message or continuing to use our site, you agree to the use of cookies. Visit our updated privacy and cookie policy to learn more.
SDMmag logo
search
cart
facebook twitter linkedin youtube
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
SDMmag logo
  • Home
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Digital Editions
    • Archives
    • Monitoring Today
    • Professional Security Canada
  • Products
  • Newswire
  • Exclusives
    • SDM 100 Report
    • Top Systems Integrators Report
    • Annual Industry Forecast
    • State of the Market Series
    • Dealer of the Year
    • Systems Integrator of the Year
    • TMA Monitoring Center Excellence Awards
    • Blog
    • PSA Leadership Institute
  • Topics
    • Trends & Industry Issues
    • Video Solutions
    • Access Control & Identification
    • Smart Home
    • More SDM Topics
  • Columns
    • Editor's Angle
    • 5-Minute Tech Quiz
    • Security & the Law
    • Security Networkings
    • Digital Shuffle
    • Technology @ Work
    • Insider News & Business
    • Today's Systems Integrator
    • Marketing Madmen
    • Sales Stars
    • Smart Insights
  • Events
    • Industry Calendar
    • SDM 100 Gala @ ESX
    • Webinars
  • More
    • Videos
    • Podcasts
    • ISC West 2019
    • Photo Galleries
    • Newsletters
    • Classified Ads
    • SDM Store
    • White Papers
    • Sponsor Insights
    • More Resources
  • Directories
    • Buyers Guide
    • Take a Tour
    • Guide to Distributors
    • Guide to Central Stations & Monitoring
  • Contact
  • Advertise
Home » Limited Liability Clause Would Have Helped in Wrongful Death Lawsuit
Security & the LawColumnsLife Safety & Fire AlarmTrends & Industry Issues

Limited Liability Clause Would Have Helped in Wrongful Death Lawsuit

Security & the Law Default
June 1, 2017
Lessing E. Gold
KEYWORDS security dealers
Reprints
No Comments

A recent case decided in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida is worth discussing. The defendant produces, markets and sells medical alert systems. 

The plaintiff’s mother purchased the defendant’s system and she suffered a fall that the system did not detect. She was rendered disabled for approximately twenty-four hours before the plaintiff discovered her. She died shortly thereafter. 

The plaintiff, as the personal representative of his mother’s estate, filed a suit against the defendant for the wrongful death of his mother, alleging three causes of action: strict liability, negligence, and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). The defendant filed a motion to dismiss.

The court indicated that under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in order to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim, the court should not dismiss the claim unless it is “clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” The court pointed out that in order to state an FDUTPA claim, the plaintiff must prove three elements: (1) a deceptive act or unfair trade practice, (2) causation, and (3) actual damages. 

The defendant contended that the plaintiff did not adequately prove the first element, i.e., a deceptive act or unfair trade practice, because he did not allege any particular deceptive or unfair trade practices engaged in by the defendant and made only conclusory statements without stating how the defendant’s practices were deceptive or unfair. 

The court pointed out that the plaintiff alleged two specific advertising practices that he considered deceptive and/or unfair:

  1. The defendant markets its product as capable of detecting greater than 95 percent of falls.

  2. The defendant misrepresents that undetectable falls can include a gradual slide from a seated position or wheelchair.

The court noted that in this litigation the plaintiff did not need to provide evidence of any support or even detailed information as to why he thinks these advertising practices are deceptive or unfair. He need only provide the defendant with notice of the practices he thinks are deceptive or unfair. Therefore, the court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

The importance of this case lies in the fact that although the writer is not aware of whether or not there was a written contract between the deceased and the defendant, one can only assume that there was no contract that contained a limitation of liability provision. In view of the fact that there were three causes of action, i.e., strict liability, negligence and violation of the FDUTPA, it is likely that there was no written contract with the limitation of liability provision as they were not raised by a motion to dismiss or by a motion for summary judgment. Had such a contract existed and had the limitation of liability provision been raised by way of a motion for dismissal or by way of a motion for summary judgment, the results may well have been different at that stage of the proceeding.

Obviously, the case will go to trial so one cannot reach a conclusion as to what the end result may be; however, as a cautionary notice to those companies providing medical alert systems, a contract providing the company with protection in the event a system fails to operate properly, would be very beneficial from a legal standpoint. 

 

Readers Ask

Q: I heard your comments recently regarding your opinion that before providing medical alert services you feel we should have a contract that limits our liability. I have two questions:

1. What if our subscriber refuses to sign such an agreement?

2. What if our subscriber, because of health or age reasons, is unable to sign such an agreement? Would it be appropriate or legal for an offspring or guardian to sign the agreement?

To read the answer, go to SDMmag.com. Click the Columns tab and select Security & the Law.

To ask Les Gold a question, e-mail SDM@bnpmedia.com.

 

ANSWER

With reference to your first inquiry, if the system does not operate appropriately, or even if the system does operate and the subscriber suffers a significant injury or loss, the probability is that they are going to file a legal action against you, the company. If you do not have a contract with a limitation of liability provision, the exposure can be very significant. In addition, obtaining insurance coverage without the contract may be difficult. Even if you are successful in a legal action, without insurance, the cost of litigation can be very, very significant. Failure to secure an appropriate contract is a calculated risk. 

With reference to your second inquiry, if your subscriber is unable for any reason to either understand or execute an agreement, you should attempt to get the legal guardian to sign on behalf of the subscriber. If no legal guardian, it is beneficial to attempt to have a family member sign the agreement. If a caregiver is a legal guardian, then it would be beneficial for the caregiver to sign. Notwithstanding, it is beneficial to have a family member or legal guardian sign on behalf of the subscriber. Whether that will stand up in a court of law may be questionable, but it is still better than having no signature at all. 

Subscribe to SDM Magazine

Recent Articles by Lessing Gold

Is Alarm Company Responsible for Plaintiff’s Flood Damage?

Can Insurance Company Recoup in Fire Sprinkler Case?

Does Monitoring Contract With Tenants Entitle Building Insurance Provider to Reimbursement?

Prominent Liability Clause Protects an Alarm Company That Failed to Respond

Burglar Alarm Responding Sheriff Causes Traffic Accident — Was he Liable?

Les-gold-dscf0001

Lessing E. Gold of Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp is counsel to the California Alarm Association and a contributing legal columnist. He can be reached at sdm@bnpmedia.com.

Related Articles

Security & the Law: Is The Limitation Of Liability Clause Drowned By The Flood?

Does Limited Liability Protect Alarm Company?

Prominent Liability Clause Protects an Alarm Company That Failed to Respond

Limited Liability Protects Alarm Company From Uninsured Customer Claim

Related Products

High-Rise Security and Fire Life Safety, 3rd Edition

You must login or register in order to post a comment.

Report Abusive Comment

Subscribe For Free!
  • Print & Digital Edition Subscriptions
  • SDM eNewsletter & Other eNews Alerts
  • Online Registration
  • Subscription Customer Service

More Videos

Sponsored Content What Is Sponsored Content

Sponsored Content is a special paid section where industry companies provide high quality, objective, non-commercial content around topics of interest to the SDM audience. All Sponsored Content is supplied by the advertising company. Interested in participating in our Sponsored Content section? Contact your local rep.

Close
Featureimage_900x550__ovl0jlkbbj__
Sponsored By
Schneider Electric

New Digital Load Management System Drives Productivity and Enables New Business Models

Motor starter selection and configuration has always been a labor-intensive task. To address this challenge, machine builders and system integrators must adopt new technologies that simplify motor starter selection, installation, configuration and maintenance.

Popular Stories

Dealer of the Year(2019)

SDM 2019 Dealer of the Year: CPI Security of Charlotte, NC

GettyImages-1087183206

Whatever Happened to the Prediction of a Mass Extinction of Security Dealers?

STANLEY

STANLEY Security Partners With Indianapolis Colts to Honor Local ‘Security Champion’

Aiphone

Go Above & Beyond for Effective Emergency Communication/Notification

ADT Commercial

ADT Commercial Purchases Critical Systems of Georgia

SDM 2019 Top Systems Integrators Report

Events

January 1, 2030

Webinar Sponsorship Information

For webinar sponsorship information, visit www.bnpevents.com/webinars or email webinars@bnpmedia.com.

View All Submit An Event

Poll

Hiring Women in Security

Has your company made any efforts in the past year to specifically hire and/or promote women in managerial/executive positions? (Please select the best answer.)
View Results Poll Archive

Products

Contemporary Security Management, 4th Edition

Contemporary Security Management, 4th Edition

 Contemporary Security Management, 3rd Edition teaches security professionals how to operate an efficient security department and how to integrate smoothly with other groups inside and outside their own organizations. 

See More Products

SDM Magazine

_FC_SDM1219 cover 144x192

2019 December

Check out SDM Magazine’s December 2019 issue, featuring "CPI’s Key to Success Is Controlling ‘the Experience’ in-House", "Monitoring Services: The Cutting Edge", and much more.

Check back throughout the month for new content!

View More Create Account
  • Resources
    • List Rental
    • Online Exclusives
    • Industry Innovations
    • Partners
    • Privacy Policy
    • Survey And Sample
  • Want More
    • Subscribe
    • Connect

Copyright ©2019. All Rights Reserved BNP Media.

Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing