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 this two-part series, Les Gold expertly breaks down a major case for the fire alarm industry involving the Lisle-Woodridge Fire Protection District.
In this two-part series, Les Gold expertly breaks down a major case for the fire alarm industry involving the Lisle-Woodridge Fire Protection District.
In a case decided this past year in the state of Massachusetts, a court ruled a city ordinance that restricted approved fire signaling devices and systems conflicted with the state law.
Every so often, in a lawsuit, not only does the judge render an opinion, but the judge will explain the rationale for his decision, which is the reason why the following case is reviewed in this month’s column.
In a recent case in the state of Florida, a group of investors alleged they were victims of a Ponzi scheme and filed an action against a company and its directors.
In a recent case in Connecticut, the issue was raised about when a statute of limitations begins to run.
June 10, 2013
In a recent case in Connecticut, the issue was raised about when a statute of limitations begins to run. In that case, the defendant alarm company applied for and received credit from the plaintiff, a distributor of fire and home security equipment.
A very comprehensive case was decided by the United States District Court for the Central District of California involving the liability of an alarm company.
A question frequently asked is whether a nonparty to an action can be compelled to provide documentation in a lawsuit, when the subpoenaed party claims that the document and its contents are privileged
An interesting case is presently pending in the state of Arizona. An alarm was activated at the plaintiff’s uniform laundering facility in Phoenix. Within minutes, the plaintiff’s alarm monitoring company notified the city fire department that it had received a water flow alarm, which indicated the activation of fire suppression equipment at the plaintiff’s facility. The alarm company also reported that a burglar alarm at the facility had been activated.
In a recent Illinois case, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against a municipality and a police officer who responded with other officers to a bank alarm, alleging, among other things, violations of the Fourth Amendment.
The court in a recent Minnesota case noted there is a distinction between willful and wanton negligence and gross negligence. The plaintiff in the case purchased a home alarm system. Later, the defendant alarm company received a low-temperature alarm but failed to contact the plaintiff or any of the account’s contacts. Later, the low temperature caused a pipe to burst, resulting in damage.