A suit was recently filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas accusing a number of alarm companies of infringing on a patent described as “303 patent.”
An interesting case just arose in the state of Pennsylvania in a rather complicated set of facts. An employee of the alarm company was testing a smoke detector for a client.
A case recently came before the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma involving a PERS system. The estate of decedent filed a claim against the manufacturer of the PERS system and the company that leased and monitored the system in the District Court of Grady County, Okla.
A recent case was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, involving the limitation of liability in an Admiralty case law. Although Admiralty law may differ from the law utilized in the security alarm industry, the principles described in the case are important.
Often when there is a fire loss, the owner of the premise has insurance and the carrier denies liability because there is no fire alarm system installed.
An action was recently filed by an individual claiming that the defendant violated provisions of the Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and New York General Business Law (NYGBL).
In a recent case filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant alarm company violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act by failing to provide the promised alarm protection.