*************************
    Home owners home burned to the ground; she sued Sonitrol of Heartford claiming that the fire could have been prevented if the fire alarm system worked.   Here are the facts are laid out by the Judge:

"The complaints allege various claims stemming from a fire that destroyed the plaintiff's home and the personal property therein. The plaintiff claims that the defendant Sonitrol Communications Corporation, a.k.a. Sonitrol of Hartford, provided fire alarm equipment and monitoring service to
the plaintiff's home which would detect fire or smoke and alert Sonitrol, which would dispatch the proper emergency personnel to her home. The plaintiff claims that the equipment failed to work properly, and the appropriate authorities were not contacted, so that the fire spread, causing the complete destruction of her home. The plaintiff claims that a substantial amount of the damage caused by the fire could have been prevented if the heat/smoke and fire alarm system  operated as Sonitrol represented it would. The plaintiff makes claims of breach of contract (Sixth Count), negligent misrepresentation (Seventh Count), recklessness (Eighth Count), fraudulent misrepresentation (Ninth Count), and CUTPA (Tenth Count), against Sonitrol."

    Sonitrol moved for summary judgment.  It had a contract with a limitation of liability provision and other protective provisions, but the Judge did not rely on the contract terms in her decision dismissing the complaint.  Rather the Judge noted 
that:
    "... since no one knows how the fire started, when it started, where it started in the home, and even if the smoke alarm was operational, any conclusion that the proper operation of the alarm system would have reduced in any way the plaintiff's damages is extremely speculative."

    The case is interesting because most alarm cases turn on the protective provisions of the  contract and not on the facts.  The plaintiff in the case worked hard to overcome the lack of facts to establish that Sonitrol was either negligent or breached its contract.  In fact, if the plaintiff had been honest her argument would have been reduced to "I had a fire alarm system that should have prevented a fire loss and it didn't".  It's exactly what I have been saying regarding your perception of the alarm system and your subscriber's perception:  detection versus prevention.  And don't think the plaintiff and here lawyer were on their own without "experts".  One expert, an engineer, concluded that 
    " 1) the fire area of origin was the first floor living room at the northeast corner of the structure; 2) even with a singular smoke alarm placed at   a location furthest from the origin of the fire, smoke would have taken approximately two minutes to sound the Sonitrol smoke alarm thereby sending a signal to Sonitrol; 3) it would have taken a maximum of approximately 8 minutes for the fire department to arrive and begin fire suppression efforts if at least a singular smoke alarm had been connected to the Sonitrol System and control panel; and 4) based upon the foregoing, the fire would have been contained to certain areas of the house and certain other areas of the property would not have been consumed by fire "
    The Judge had this to say about the engineer's testimony:
    "a review of his affidavit, as well as portions of his deposition testimony, indicate that there
is no factual basis for his opinions and that they are simply theoretical."
    Plaintiff found another "expert" to support her case.  Here is what this expert had to say:
    "Jeffrey Zwrin, another of the plaintiff's experts, claims that Sonitrol's failure to supervise the system and to report an automatic test failure signal was a significant proximate cause of the damages sustained. He also opines that "had Sonitrol complied with its statutory duties and industry standards, and if Sonitrol properly recommended, designed, installed, programed, serviced, tested, inspected, maintained, repaired, monitored, and completed The System's installation and its Central Station monitoring responsibilities, including proper monitoring of the automated test signaling; and had Sonitrol not acted deceptively in furtherance of their own objective, that the fire would have been detected in its incipient stages and the damages   sustained would have been significantly minimized and contained." 
    The Judge dealt with Zwirn's testimony by finding that:
    "Yet his affidavit is devoid
of a factual basis other than the fact the Sonitrol records showed an absence of the automated monthly test signal being received by Sonitrol for more than thirty days before the fire."
    The Judge concluded that:
     "The plaintiff has not submitted admissible evidence which raises a question of fact as to the cause of the plaintiff's damages."  Based on this finding the Judge dismissed the causes of action for Breach of Contract, Negligent and Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Reckless, Wanton and Wilful Misconduct, 
    Sonitrol did submit testimony in support of the motion: 
    "Sonitrol submitted the affidavit of Joel Zimmerman, vice president of operations for Sonitrol, who states that prior to the time of the fire Sonitrol had no knowledge that the plaintiff's alarm system was not operable, that it was not connected   to the telephone lines, or that the plaintiff had switched telephone service providers. Also, the contract with Sonitrol did not provide for monthly testing by Sonitrol and, in fact, the contract provides that the client "agrees to perform system checks as instructed by dealer in order to ascertain the system is properly functioning."
    You can read the decision in its entirety on my web site, Alarm Issues, Leading Cases state by state,  at:
https://www.kirschenbaumesq.com/article/-susan-behan-v-sonitrol-corporation-et-al-


*************************

TO SUBMIT QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS REPLY TO THIS EMAIL OR EMAIL Ken@Kirschenbaumesq.com.  Most comments and questions get circulated.

*****************************************

Speaking Engagements

****************************************

*******************
Metropolitan Burglar and Fire Alarm Assoc of New York.  May 15, 2014 4:30 to 6:30 PM at Marriot Hotel, Uniondale, NY.  Comprehensive analysis and comparison of the Standard Form All in One contracts.  All alarm dealers welcome.  No charge for attendance. Dinner and MBFAA meeting will follow the seminar.  For more info and to RSVP contact Alan Glasser, Executive Director of MBFAA at 718-894-6712 or mbfaa.ny@gmail.com

************************

Northeast Security & Systems Contractors Expo.  Thursday, May 22, 2014 10 am to 5 PM at  Royal Plaza Trade Center,  Marlborough, MA.  registration  https://www.expotracshows.com/neacc/2014/  Presentation on Alarm Law issues and Q&A will be at 2 PM.  For more info contact Gary Spaulding, NEACC President

207-384-2420 gary@spauldingsecurity.com
***********************

Alabama Alarm Association.  AAA's Fall Meeting and Trade Show - October 21, 2014 from 3 to 5 PM at DoubleTree Hotel 808 South 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35205  for more info contact AAA Executive Director: director@alabamaalarm.org  (205) 933-9000 

*********************

Electronic Security Summit for 2014.  October 22-24, 2014  at the landmark Broadmoor Hotel. Colorado Springs, CO.  For more information contact Alexander J. Quirin, CEO & Managing Partner, Advisory Summit Providers, LLC.,  (786) 999-9738    alex.quirin@aspsummits.com    www.aspsummits.com

**********************