An Illinois-based legal battle involving an attempt by public entities to take over fire alarm monitoring in Illinois has received national attention for its potential to influence fire monitoring in districts across the United States. While many know that, to date, the courts have sided with the alarm companies operating in Illinois, not as many may know the specific legal explanations for why the courts reached those rulings.

In a case in the state of Colorado, an alarm company was found liable for willful and wanton breach of contract in the failure to perform its obligations for installation, repair, maintenance and offsite monitoring of burglar alarm equipment installed in a warehouse damaged by a fire following a burglary.

There are a variety of ways for an alarm company to spread its green footprint. One of the most commonly discussed and easily considered areas of going green is the reduction of the use of paper.

In a case recently decided by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, a complaint against a municipality and various police officers alleged that they had violated the Constitutional rights of the case’s plaintiff, including “his First Amendment right of privacy and his Fourth Amendment right not to have his residence invaded and searched by the government.”

In a recent case before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the court clarified multiple issues frequently faced by alarm companies in court.

Two issues came to the forefront of a case in New York: the definition of gross negligence and contract interpretation. An insurance company filed suit against an alarm company to recover insurance payments made to the insured following a fire at the insured’s premises, a restaurant. The alarm company filed a motion to dismiss.

Questions are frequently asked by alarm dealers when a customer or a subscriber files for bankruptcy. Can the alarm company collect the past due account?

In a consumer class action against a defendant wireless telephone carrier, The Superior Court of Alameda County of California found early termination fees (ETFs) charged by the carrier to customers terminating service prior to expiration of defined contract periods to be unlawful penalties and granted restitution/damages to the plaintiff class action. The carrier appealed.

A recent case in Arizona involved the municipal taxation of home security services when the provider’s monitoring facility was out of state and the services included telecommunications. Municipalities are prohibited from taxing interstate telecommunication service under Arizona law.