SDMmag logo
search
Go to Ask SDM AI
cart
facebook twitter linkedin youtube
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
SDMmag logo
  • NEWS
  • PRODUCTS
  • TOPICS
    • Access Control & Identification
    • Integration & Network Solutions
    • Life Safety & Fire Alarm
    • Monitoring
    • Smart Home
    • Trends & Industry Issues
    • Video Solutions
  • COLUMNS
    • Digital Shuffle
    • Editor's Angle
    • Insider News & Business
    • Integration Spotlight
    • Marketing Madmen
    • Security & the Law
    • Security Comings & Goings
    • Security Networkings
    • Technology @ Work
    • Technology Solutions & Skills
    • SIA Waypoints
    • Cybersecurity Chronicle
  • EXCLUSIVES
    • Annual Industry Forecast
    • Dealer of the Year
    • Project of the Year
    • SDM 100
    • State of the Market Series
    • Systems Integrator of the Year
    • Top Systems Integrator Report
    • TMA Excellence Awards
  • BLOG
  • MEDIA
    • Videos
    • Podcasts
    • Polls
    • White Papers
  • EVENTS
    • Industry Calendar
    • Webinars
  • MORE
    • Classified Ads
    • Newsletters
    • SDM Store
    • State of Security eBook
    • Sponsored Insights
  • BUYERS GUIDE
    • Buyers Guide
    • Take a Tour
  • EMAG
    • eMagazine
    • Archive Issues
    • Monitoring Today
    • Advertise
  • SIGN UP!
Intrusion AlarmStandards, Regulations & LegislationColumnsSecurity & the Law

Security & The Law

Prominent Liability Clause Protects an Alarm Company That Failed to Respond

ALARM CONTRACTS

By Lessing E. Gold, Contributing writer
Security  Law 2019
September 2, 2019

An interesting case in Georgia arose when a brother brought an action against a home security company for failing to properly notify.  The complaint alleged that the decedent, who had Alzheimer’s disease, died from hypothermia after wandering from her home. Despite the alarm being activated at the home, the alarm company failed to contact the decedent’s niece and neighbor as instructed. The next morning, the neighbor found the decedent had succumbed overnight to hypothermia.  

The alarm company filed a motion to dismiss claiming, among other things, that the contract signed by the decedent barred the lawsuit or alternatively limited the plaintiff’s recovery.  

Georgia has historically afforded great protection to the freedom to contract with another person. The courts are thus bound to enforce contracts as made so long as they are not contrary to law or public policy. Generally, exculpatory clauses in which a business seeks to relieve itself from its own negligence are valid and binding and are not void as against public policy unless they purport to relieve liability for acts of gross negligence or willful or wanton conduct. Because exculpatory clauses may amount to an accord and satisfaction of future claims and waive substantial rights, they require a meeting of the minds on the subject matter and must be explicit, prominent, clear and unambiguous.

The court distinguished this case from other limitation of liability provisions where the court found the provision unenforceable because the provision was on the back of the home security contract or was written in small, uncapitalized font within a subparagraph that also included seemingly unrelated information about the potential liability of police or fire departments.  

In this case the contract signed with the defendant alarm company contains several provisions designed to limit the defendant’s liability. These provisions all appear in section 5 of the contract, entitled LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.  The first two subparagraphs in section 5 read in part:

A. INSURANCE:  WAIVER OF SUBROGATION.  I AGREE THAT COMPANY IS NOT PROVIDING ME WITH INSURANCE OF ANY TYPE  ...  IN THE EVENT OF ANY LOSS, DAMAGE, OR INJURY, I WILL LOOK EXCLUSIVELY TO MY INSURER AND NOT TO COMPANY TO COMPENSATE ME OR ANYONE ELSE.  I RELEASE AND WAIVE FOR MYSELF AND MY INSURER ALL SUBROGATION AND OTHER RIGHTS TO RECOVER AGAINST COMPANY ARISING, AS A RESULT OF THE PAYMENT OF ANY CLAIM FOR LOSS, DAMAGE OR INJURY.

B. NO GUARANTEE; NO LIABILITY.  COMPANY’S EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES DO NOT CAUSE AND CANNOT ELMINATE OCCURRENCES OF THE EVENTS THEY ARE INTENDED TO DETECT OR AVERT. … COMPANY DOES NOT UNDERTAKE ANY RISK THAT I … MAY BE SUBJECT TO INJURY OR LOSS IF SUCH AN EVENT OCCURS.  THE ALLOCTION OF SUCH RISK REMAINS WITH ME, AND NOT WITH COMPANY.  I RELEASE, WAIVE, DISCHARGE AND PROMISE NOT TO SUE OR BRING ANY CLAIM OF ANY TYPE AGAINST COMPANY FOR LOSS, DAMAGE, INJURY, RELATING TO THE EQUIPMENT OR SERVICES PROVIDED BY COMPANY.

In determining whether a limitation of liability clause or an exculpatory clause is prominent, courts may consider a number of factors. The important language in the contract is prominent and is repeated in many sections throughout. The court found that the exculpatory provisions of the contract are enforceable.  As a result, the plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract, negligence, negligent supervision and training, and fraudulent misrepresentations are barred by the contract in this case and must be dismissed.


READERS ASK 

Q: We are an alarm company specializing in commercial security. One of our subscribers has asked us to install an alarm in a storage facility next to his home. By accepting this assignment, would I require a home improvement license or do I have to comply with any home improvement law?

 

A: I cannot give you an answer without knowing what state you are doing business in. Every state has its own home improvement laws. I will mention, however, that recently in the State of Maryland, the state charged an individual for acting as a home improvement contractor without a license, and the individual was convicted. The individual offered to paint a chicken house that was about a quarter of a mile from the recipient’s home. He claimed that the state failed to meet the definition of home improvement because the chicken houses were “separate from the actual property where the house is located” further arguing that the chicken houses are “farm buildings” that are “separate and distinct from the dwelling property.”  

The circuit court stated that “home improvement includes construction, improvement or replacement on land adjacent to the building of a driveway, fallout shelter, fence, garage, landscaping, deck, pier, porch or swimming pool, even shore erosion. The court indicated that this was meant to cover any structure that’s in any way adjacent to the property. Thus the court found that the appellant was guilty of violating the Maryland code.  

On appeal, the Appeals Court in Maryland indicated that a home improvement means “the addition to or alteration, conversion, improvement, modernization, remodeling, repair, or replacement of a building or part of a building that is used or designed to be used as a residence or dwelling place or a structure adjacent to that building. The court found that the chicken houses were about a quarter of a mile away from the home and the property was leased for the purposes of a chicken farming business. The chicken houses were not designed to be used as a residence, a dwelling place or a structure adjacent to the home. Therefore, the circuit court had insufficient facts or evidence to conclude that the appellant’s actions violated the Maryland code and that no trier of fact could have found that appellant failed to perform a home improvement contract. Therefore the judgment of the circuit court was reversed.  

I hope this is useful.

 

Looking for quick answers on security topics? Try Ask SDM, our new smart AI search tool. Ask SDM →

KEYWORDS: law security alarm security industry security systems

Share This Story

Looking for a reprint of this article?
From high-res PDFs to custom plaques, order your copy today!

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.

Recommended Content

JOIN TODAY
to unlock your recommendations.

Already have an account? Sign In

  • SDM 100

    SDM 100: Top 100 Security Dealers of 2026

    The top 100 security dealers navigated a complex...
    SDM 100 Report
    By: Karyn Hodgson
  • Security camera

    State of the Market: Video Surveillance

    As video surveillance shifts from siloed systems to...
    State of the Market Series
    By: Brianna Wilson
  • 2026 Industry Forecast

    SDM 2026 INDUSTRY FORECAST

    Rapid technology advances meet shifting economic...
    Exclusives
    By: Karyn Hodgson
Manage My Account
  • SDM Newsletters
  • Online Registration
  • eMagazine Subscriptions
  • Subscription Customer Service
  • Manage My Preferences

More Videos

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 and any opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily reflect the views of SDM or its parent company, BNP Media. Interested in participating in our Sponsored Content section? Contact your local rep!

close
  • Doctor examining child patient with mother present in medical clinic
    Sponsored byHID

    The Human Side of Hospital Security: How Modern Visitor Management Protects People First

Popular Stories

Video surveillance camera

Why Video Health Monitoring Is a ‘No Brainer’

ESA Board of Directors Q2 26 Elections

Electronic Security Association Announces 2026 Board of Directors Election Results

TMA & SDM Logos

Becklar, Elite & Puget Win 2026 TMA/SDM Monitoring Center Excellence Awards

SDM Dealer of the Year 2026 Promotion

Poll

What’s the most promising trend in the industry?

What’s the most promising trend in the industry?
View Results Poll Archive

Products

Physical Security Assessment Handbook An Insider’s Guide to Securing a Business

Physical Security Assessment Handbook An Insider’s Guide to Securing a Business

See More Products
SDM 100 2026 Rankings

Related Articles

  • Security  Law 2019

    Does an Alarm Company Need Consent to Use Autodialer Under TCPA?

    See More
  • A Case Against an Alarm Company

    See More
  • Limited Liability Clause Would Have Helped in Wrongful Death Lawsuit

    See More
×

Be in the forefront of security intelligence when you receive SDM.

Join over 10,000+ professionals when you subscribe today.

SIGN UP TODAY!
  • RESOURCES
    • Advertise
    • Contact Us
    • Directories
    • Store
    • Want More
  • SIGN UP TODAY
    • Create Account
    • eMagazine
    • Newsletter
    • Customer Service
    • Manage Preferences
  • SERVICES
    • Marketing Services
    • Reprints
    • Market Research
    • List Rental
    • Survey/Respondent Access
  • STAY CONNECTED
    • LinkedIn
    • Facebook
    • YouTube
    • X (Twitter)
  • PRIVACY
    • PRIVACY POLICY
    • TERMS & CONDITIONS
    • DO NOT SELL MY PERSONAL INFORMATION
    • PRIVACY REQUEST
    • ACCESSIBILITY

Copyright ©2026. All Rights Reserved BNP Media, Inc. and BNP Media II, LLC.

Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing