NCJ Number
94109
Journal
Case and Comment Volume: 89 Issue: 3 Dated: (May-June 1984) Pages: 3-5,8,10,12
Date Published
1984
Length
6 pages
Annotation
This article addresses legal problems having to do with alarm installation services' liabilities. Judgments against providers of security services have occurred when those services failed to prevent a burglary.
Abstract
Problems with unrealistic expectations by the purchaser and lack of awareness of customers' quality standards by installers are avoidable using skilled contract draftsmanship and customer education. An installer cannot successfully skirt around negligence, and customers can win satisfaction in court by proving that negligence was related to the loss. Contracts should contain explicit information delineating the installer's responsibilities and a statement that a provider of security systems is not an insurer of property. A contractual liability limit is of utmost importance. The courts have shown less reluctance to penalize the installer where the systems concerned have the feature of notifying authorities, the installer, and/or the customer. These cases are more complex, as they involve a third party -- the monitoring service. Furthermore, the promptness of responses to calls depends upon telephone service and police action. A contract between the central monitoring service and the customer should explain precisely the duties of the station. It should also outline the consumer's responsiilities to engage the system when absent from the premises. Sixteen notes are included.