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.
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.
Some codes do not require fully sprinklered buildings to have fire alarm control panels installed, therefore making sprinklered buildings good monitoring prospects.
Since the economic downturn, there has been a huge drop in commercial building construction — a market that has significant impact on the sales and installation of fire sprinkler systems.