There are a variety of ways for an alarm company to spread its green footprint. One of the most commonly discussed and easily considered areas of going green is the reduction of the use of paper.

In a case recently decided by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, a complaint against a municipality and various police officers alleged that they had violated the Constitutional rights of the case’s plaintiff, including “his First Amendment right of privacy and his Fourth Amendment right not to have his residence invaded and searched by the government.”

In a recent case before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the court clarified multiple issues frequently faced by alarm companies in court.

Two issues came to the forefront of a case in New York: the definition of gross negligence and contract interpretation. An insurance company filed suit against an alarm company to recover insurance payments made to the insured following a fire at the insured’s premises, a restaurant. The alarm company filed a motion to dismiss.

Questions are frequently asked by alarm dealers when a customer or a subscriber files for bankruptcy. Can the alarm company collect the past due account?

In a consumer class action against a defendant wireless telephone carrier, The Superior Court of Alameda County of California found early termination fees (ETFs) charged by the carrier to customers terminating service prior to expiration of defined contract periods to be unlawful penalties and granted restitution/damages to the plaintiff class action. The carrier appealed.

A recent case in Arizona involved the municipal taxation of home security services when the provider’s monitoring facility was out of state and the services included telecommunications. Municipalities are prohibited from taxing interstate telecommunication service under Arizona law.

In a recent case before the Supreme Court of the state of New York, the plaintiff claimed that a security alarm company violated Labor Law §240(1). The man wanted damages for injuries sustained when he was working on a ladder that allegedly shifted, causing him to fall to the floor. The plaintiff was a journeyman electrician employed by a third-party defendant contractor, and he was installing cables for a security system that was undergoing renovation.

A case was recently decided by the United States District Court in the State of New York regarding the impact of a claim for gross negligence on a contract’s waiver of subrogation provision.