*******************************
QUESTION RE: SUMMER DOOR KNOCKERS
******************************
Ken,
    We have a new summer sales company operating in Texas. “ Alder Security “.  Formerly Alarm Protection Technologies.  They are based in Utah.  One of our customers called and said they needed to cancel ( their system had already been replaced ). They have a about 1 year left on a three year $35.00 per month agreement.  When I asked why they said they hooked up with Alder.  I did some research and as of this E-mail  Alder is not an active alarm company in Texas,  they are listed as “incomplete application”.   I drove through the area where this customer lives and found 5 brand new yard signs from Alder.  Usually when a customer defaults we send a demand letter and then report to the credit bureau if not paid.  Would it be worth my effort to try and sue Alder for more? 
Anon
**************************** 
RESPONSE
****************************
    Like the some epidemic they mysteriously appear by the bus load looking for alarm yard signs and stickers.  Proselytize not their faith but a new alarm system; sometimes just reprogramming the old one, but always a new yard sign.  Alarm companies await this plight each year, hoping the bus keeps rolling beyond their customer base territory.
    You can and should hold your subscribers to their contracts provided you have those contracts properly executed.  Start a few cases and see how many complain to the local consumer agencies that they were duped.  You can try complaining to the same agencies but it won't have the same impact as a complaint from an actual consumer.
    Taking on the offending alarm company may be more of a mouthful than you can chew, unless you're ADT.  You may find the offending company to be well financed and more than prepared to repel your lawsuit for tortious interference.  
    Try draping garlic on your yard signs to keep them at bay. 
***********************************
INDEMNITY ISSUE
**********************************
Ken,
    Recently a city attorney reviewed our contract, for work with the city on monitoring. Two items he pointed out are as follows and his comments.
    Indemnity, “There is no way the city should be indemnifying the company given the amount of money involved with this contract. Additionally, open-ended indemnification of a party to a contract violates the Texas constitution.”
    For this conversation, monitoring is $50.00 per month, no other services provided under contract.  They had suggested to agree to indemnify to a specific dollar amount. I know this is impossible to know what the cost would be, but for a city to indemnify, would you suggest a dollar amount in this scenario, $100,000?  $1 million?   He had suggested indemnification to the dollar amount of the contract.   I don’t think $50.00 would go very far against my attorney bills should the need arise. Obviously we are trying to create a maximum dollar figure for a hypothetical situation, it never ends.  At some point in time (dollar figure wise) I would assume the cost would transfer to the company?
    The other issue was the customer insuring to 100% of the stated value. Is this necessary? What if the customer is self insured?
Jason
*******************************
RESPONSE
******************************
    Great question.  The City Attorney is undoubtedly correct that his municipality has laws that prohibit it from indemnifying its vendors.  Can't, won't, doesn't make difference.  The indemnity provision in your agreement will be challenged and if you want the work you're going to have to give in.  
    The easiest approach in your situation is to omit the indemnity provision from the agreement.  In the Standard Form Agreements this is the first sentence of the Indemnity Paragraph.  Leave the rest of the paragraph in place.
    Why omit indemnity?  Well, first there are other even more valuable provisions in the contract you can rely on [and you shouldn't take them all out] and second, the indemnity really aids your insurance carrier who will be called upon to handle claims.  I am not advocating omitting the indemnity provision as a matter of routine, but only when getting the job depends on it.
    You are likely to have a problem with a municipality on the insurance procurement clause also.  That's because they are often self insured or carrier such high deductibles that they consider themselves self insured.  The insurance procurement clause can also be omitted but it really should be modified.  If the municipality claims it doesn't carrier insurance and doesn't want to insure itself then perhaps you can negotiate terms that express that the subscriber acknowledges that it is self insured and assumes the risk of  loss for any damages arising from the failure of the alarm equipment and services.  Again, this is not a provision worth losing a significant job over.