Was an officer justified in shooting two service dogs during a burglar alarm incident?

A family restaurant misrepresented their fire mitigation safeguards to their insurance company, and were denied coverage after a fire.

An assisted living community consisting of several buildings, one of which was used as a residential personal facility for the elderly, experienced a tragic fire. The sprinkler system was protected by a fire protection monitoring service, which had merged with the defendant.

Many years ago I reported on a case decided in California. Fireman’s Fund had paid various claims for burglary or fire losses and filed a lawsuit against alarm companies that had contracts with the plaintiff`s insureds, claiming subrogation to losses arising from property damage incidents sustained by insureds.

A recent case was filed by an insurance company as subrogee against an alarm company in Florida under the choice-of-law rules. The insured contracted with the alarm company to provide monitoring of its business facility.

Kermit the frog said, “It’s not easy being green.” While it takes some effort and may not be easy going green for an alarm company, it is certainly an achievable goal.

In California, a man brought an action against his former employer, alleging claims of employment-related discrimination and retaliation. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied the employer’s motion to compel arbitration. The employer appealed.

A jury trial in Hawaii found that the defendants — a fire alarm company and its owners — breached a contract with their bonding company.

An interesting case involving a limitation of liability provision was recently appealed after a jury trial verdict for a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff kept substantial assets in a safe deposit box at a bank.