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 MoreThis 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.
An action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against an alarm company arose out of a fire that caused extensive damage to a property. The insurance company made payment to its insured in excess of $400,000 for the damages sustained from the fire according to the terms of the policy. Then, more than one year after the fire occurred, the insurance company brought an action against the alarm company for negligence, breach of contract and breach of warranty, seeking to recover the payments made to its insured.
A rather interesting case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon against the United States. The action was a claim for negligence against the defendant arising out of alleged injuries to her hearing as a result of an alarm on a United States Postal Service (USPS) vending machine. The USPS office used a vending machine to dispense postal products to the public.
A recent case decided by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee discussed many of the issues important to an alarm dealer including insurance.
In a case before the Court of Appeals of the state of Florida, the court sustained the ruling of the Circuit Court that granted a summary judgment in favor of the security company resulting from an action against it for breach of express warranty and fraud arising out of a fire loss to a customer’s home.
In a recent Louisiana case, the plaintiff, a national corporation that sells, installs and monitors residential security systems, entered into a contract whereby the defendant agreed to sell alarm monitoring accounts to the plaintiff, along with the right to receive monthly payments for monitoring services under the recurring monthly revenue (RMR) accounts.
A recent case in the state of New York arose out of an overnight burglary of the plaintiff’s bank and vault. On the date of the loss, one of the defendant alarm companies was obligated by written agreement to provide a central station burglar alarm system to protect the plaintiff’s premises.
In a recent case in Minnesota, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of an alarm company and effectively
A very interesting, yet controversial, case regarding the taxation of an alarm company in Arizona was recently decided by the Court of Appeals in the state of Arizona. The alarm
In a recent case before the Court of Appeals in California, the court affirmed a decision by the Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (the Bureau)
QuestionI recently heard that the telephone company is preparing to discontinue providing POTS to transmit our alarm signals. Is there an obligation to notify our customers of the possible discontinuation
RSS
