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.
In a recent case before the United States District Court for the District of Alaska, a motion for preliminary injunction by an alarm company against the defendants was denied.
In a recent case in the state of New York, an issue arose regarding the Asset Purchase Agreement (APA). The defendants were in the business of installing, servicing and monitoring fire alarm systems. The plaintiff sought to purchase the defendants’ business pursuant to an APA, which was signed by the parties.
There was great case out of the state of New York in which the plaintiff alarm company contracted with the defendant to inspect and maintain the defendant’s fire alarm system for an initial period of five years. Approximately six months into the contract, the defendant terminated the contract. The plaintiff alarm company commenced an action alleging that the defendant, by its premature termination, breached the contract. The alarm company pursued damages under the contract’s liquidated damage clause.