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.
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.
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.
RSS
