This issue raises a question for us, if a licensed design professional, a "Professional Engineer" (PE), designs a fire alarm system, and the end result is overly loud, who is responsible?
    One of a few cases in point:
    We were a subcontractor (fire alarm) to a General Contractor who provided us with plans from a PE that designed the system for the building owner.  It was a school that was building a new kindergarten area.  The new area was using an open design concept, no classroom doors between the hall and the classroom, in most cases an opening about 6-8 feet wide.  The fire alarm plans called for at least one horn in each classroom, and several in the hall.  We commented that there were too many horns, it would be deafening, only to be told that we had to follow the "professionals" plan.  With the horns on a low setting, there was no area with less than two horns within about 20 feet and it was deafening.  Teachers could not communicate, the kids could not hear instructions and the noise scared them.  When I entered the area for testing I would use hearing protection and it was still loud.  Everyone complained about it being too loud, however, the Engineer would not back down. 
    I can see a hearing loss claim from a situation like this, and since our name is on the fire panel, presume we would be the first to be sued.
    Your thoughts, comments and suggestions please.
Thank you,
Acme Fire 
    I think your responsibility ends when you document in your Fire All in One Schedule of Equipment and Services, or whatever you sign with the General Contractor or subscriber directly, that you suggest less sirens, etc.  Problem here is that I don't know if it's the PE or the AHJ that insists on the sirens.  You can't be sued for complying with code and AHJ demands.  The Fire All in One would require the subscriber to indemnify you.  If the General Contractor or PE's agreement forms require you to indemnify them, a possibility, then you should except the noise claims since you warned them in advance.
    Interesting question regarding adding a "named additional insured".   I agree with the analysis regarding the customers request and the possible results from not having that provision in the contract;  however, I think there is a problem with the more usual scenario which is that a subscriber requests that the security company add them as a "named additional" insured on the security company's policy; unfortunately, the impact of doing so doesn't get focused on very often and these type of certificates naming the subscriber as an additional insured are just issued as an administrative matter (especially since most, if not all insurance company don't charge for naming an additional insured), without necessarily weighing the consequences of doing so.  
    The problem with naming someone as an "additional insured" makes the security company's policy the "primary" policy for the subscriber for any claims the subscriber might incur, whether or not having anything to do with the furnishing of the alarm services.   What that means is that if the subscriber had an automobile accident, or a slip and fall at its location, they could look to the security company's carrier to make good on the claim since they are a "named additional insured".
    But there is a more important threat, namely to the integrity of the security alarm contract and the basis upon which security companies can do business, by having a viable and enforceable limitation of liability/exculpation clause, such as in all of your forms of contracts.  By naming someone as an "additional insured", without any qualifiers/limitations, if they have an alarm loss, they wont try suing under the subscriber contract because of the limitation of liability provision (or if they did they wont be very successful), but they merely file a claim under the security company's insurance policy as a "named additional" insured and avoid the issue of the limitation of liability clause all together.  It is understood that from a business perspective it may be difficult to talk a subscriber out of their request to be named as an "additional insured", and so as to avoid loosing the business, the certificate of insurance naming them as such is issued.  However, that certificate and the naming of the subscriber as an  "additional insured", needs to be qualified so as to protect the security alarm company and not negate the protection of the limitation/exculpation clauses in the security alarm contract.
    First of all the naming of the additional insured should explicitly state that it relates solely to operations pursuant to the contact between the subscriber and the security company dated _____; that's so as to avoid the issue of the subscriber filing claims that should go against their own policy, rather than under the security company's policy.  Also, once the contract is terminated, the subscriber is no longer an additional insured because by its terms it only applies to "operations under the contract", and there are no longer any such operations.  Without that qualifier, even after the contract is terminated, unless the security company takes affirmative action to delete the "additional insured", they will retain that status, hopefully not longer than the next renewal of the policy, but who knows?
    Secondly and more importantly, there needs to be a proviso/limitation that clearly states that despite the "additional insured" provision, that provision will in no way impinge upon, negate or otherwise modify the intent and purposes of the limitation of liability clause; a possible caveat on the certificate might be that the additional insured applies solely as respects general liability claims arising out of the security companies actions while on the premises of the subscriber solely for operations pursuant to the contract and does not apply to any of the security services being provided, as any claim relating to those services are exclusively controlled by, and subject to, the limitation/exculpation clauses of the contract; furthermore, in  most cases, the company requesting the "named insured" status will not review the certificate once it is issued to them, but merely can now check off the "box" on their internal forms that they have received an insurance certificate and they are a "named insured"- very rarely would the limitations on that status be questioned.  
    If anyone has any questions regarding any of this and how to approach and possibly cut down the number of "additional insured" certificates and the concomitant additional exposure that go along with it, please have them contact me.
Dennis Stern,Esq
Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum
    I think the insurance brokers listed on The Alarm Exchange can probably shed more light on this complicated issue.  Complicated because the requirement of "additoinal insured" isn't really descriptive enough.  No alarm company intends to subject its General Liability and E&O carrier and coverage to be the subscriber's [or cenral station's] primary policy, nor that the additional insured coverage extend to any acts beyond those to be performed by the alarm company.  In other words, the additional insured coverage is not intended as primary to the "additional insured's" existing insurance coverage.