An interesting case involving disclosures required by a manufacturer was recently decided in the State of California. The plaintiff in the action against the defendant, a manufacturer and seller of fire safety products, claimed that the defendant failed to disclose the hazards of ionized and photoelectric smoke alarms (smoke detectors) that they manufactured and sold.

 A case against an alarm company in Connecticut dealt with the allegation of fraud. The issue of fraud can be closely analogous to that of gross negligence so the case is relevant for discussion. 

In a recent case in the State of New York, the Supreme Court heard an appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which ruled, among other things, that the claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct. 

 In a recent case in Indiana, a plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the alarm company in essence claiming that his exposure to the sound of the alarm caused permanent damage to his ability to hear.  

 The police officers and the plaintiff business owner responded to a burglary alarm at the plaintiff’s business. During the incident, the plaintiff business owner was shot by one of the responding officers.  

When a contract is reduced to writing, the parties’ intention is determined from the writing alone, if possible. The court then pointed out that the plaintiffs relied on the case of H.S. Perlin Co. versus Morse Signal Devices of San Diego, as a case in which a plaintiff’s recovery was limited by a liquidated damages provision.

What makes a company successful? Vision, patience, and the adherence to a good business plan. Most important, there also must be an excellent management team.

During the court case, the defendant requested clarification from the Department of Labor (DOL), specifically requesting the views of what work was “covered” by the statute and therefore entitled to the payment of prevailing wages and what work was not.

The court, indicated that under New York’s Economic Loss Doctrine, a party to a contract that suffered economic loss only (not personal injury) was, in most cases, limited to recovery pursuant to a claim for breach of contract and could not recover economic or consequential damages in tort.