Many years ago I reported on a case decided in California. Fireman’s Fund had paid various claims for burglary or fire losses and filed a lawsuit against alarm companies that had contracts with the plaintiff`s insureds, claiming subrogation to losses arising from property damage incidents sustained by insureds.

A recent case was filed by an insurance company as subrogee against an alarm company in Florida under the choice-of-law rules. The insured contracted with the alarm company to provide monitoring of its business facility.

Kermit the frog said, “It’s not easy being green.” While it takes some effort and may not be easy going green for an alarm company, it is certainly an achievable goal.

In California, a man brought an action against his former employer, alleging claims of employment-related discrimination and retaliation. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied the employer’s motion to compel arbitration. The employer appealed.

A jury trial in Hawaii found that the defendants — a fire alarm company and its owners — breached a contract with their bonding company.

The Security Industry Association (SIA) says this renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) acknowledges thoughtful and necessary changes that will create a fair-trade landscape while upholding pro-business principles in removing unnecessary trade barriers. 

California’s Senate Bill 327 became a statewide law on Jan. 1, as did Oregon's House Bill 2395. To address cyber security laws like these, DMP has released new firmware updates for its family of control panels.

An issue recently arose in California where a police dog was used to seize and retrieve a suspect. The plaintiff fled into a thicket of bushes during a police chase.

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.