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.
The plaintiff alleged that for years the defendants have known of the dangers posed by the design of these ionization smoke alarms: they fail to adequately detect and, thus, to alert people to smoldering fires in their homes.
In a case recently decided in the State of Illinois, the plaintiff filed a complaint alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
In a recent case decided by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, the plaintiff alarm company filed an action against one of its dealers and its owner.
In a case recently decided by the Court of Appeals in Colorado, the plaintiff and a casualty insurer appealed the judgment entered after a jury trial to determine damages under breach of contract claims against the defendant alarm company.
In a recent case before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, an interesting question arose as to whether the defendant, the company providing security, could be responsible for a decrease in value of the property because of a loss that the plaintiff contended was the fault of the security company.
