A recent action was filed in the United States District Court of Nevada where the plaintiff, owner of a building, entered into a contract with the defendant alarm company’s predecessor for security services at the building, including monitoring alarms and dispatching responses to alarms. The contract was apparently subsequently assigned to the defendant alarm company.

In a recent New Jersey case, an insurance company appealed a trial court’s order of summary judgment that dismissed its subrogation claim against the defendant, the installer of the fire sprinkler at the premises.

An insurance company (the plaintiff) issued a policy of insurance to the owners (the insured) of the property. A burglary and fire occurred and the plaintiff paid the insured for the damage.

An interesting case in Georgia arose when a brother brought an action against a home security company for failing to properly notify.

An interesting case in the state of Ohio occurred when a deputy sheriff, while responding to an activated burglar alarm (alarm drop) without lights or sirens so as to not alert any intruder in the home, collided with a stopped car.

An action was filed by the plaintiff against the State Department of Environmental Management and several of its officers after the officers seized a raccoon.

The city of Chicago adopted a wage ordinance pursuant to its home rule unit authority established by the Illinois Constitution.

A city in Wyoming refused to issue a certificate of occupancy to a hotel because the owner failed to install a fire alarm system. The plaintiff, the contractor, submitted renovation building plans to the city stating that a fire sprinkler system would be installed consistent with NFPA Standard 13.

In a case decided about a year ago by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, the plaintiff, a seller of rare coins, and the defendant alarm company entered into a contract to upgrade and convert the existing burglar alarm system.

The first article I wrote for SDM was in January 1980. While almost 40 years has passed since then, I recently came across the article and realized it is still as relevant today. So if you are at all considering selling your company, read on.