You can read all of our articles on our website. Having trouble getting our emails?   Change your spam controls and white list 

Comment on will ADT be liable for peeping Tom
February 18, 2021
Comment on will ADT be liable for peeping Tom from article on February 12, 2021
          ADT moved to dismiss the Doty class action lawsuit and the court granted in part and denied in part.
          Below are excerpts of the Court's rationale on the claims:
          “She contends, in essence, that the contract  necessarily implies an agreement that the security monitoring services would be secure from intrusion by ADT’s employees. The Court agrees. A contract for a security monitoring service that is itself unsecure is a contract for “nothing at all.”
          In that ADT endeavored to provide Plaintiff with a security system to prevent intrusion, the Court concludes that ADT has a duty under Texas law to reasonably protect Plaintiff from invasions of privacy through unauthorized access of that system and that Plaintiff may recover damages for mental anguish caused by a breach of that duty, even in the absence of physical damages.
          Plaintiff having alleged legally recognized torts and damages committed by Aviles while accessing ADT’s equipment, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has stated a claim for negligent hiring/supervision
          ADT did not commit an intrusion on Plaintiff’s privacy. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Intrusion Upon Seclusion claim will be granted
ADT argues that Texas law does not allow vicarious liability to attach under the facts alleged in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. The Court agrees.
          Plaintiff may not seek to hold ADT vicariously liable for any intentional torts that may have been committed by Aviles.
          Aviles’ unauthorized access of Plaintiff’s security system was not in the course and scope of his employment, as discussed at length above. Accordingly, Count V of the First Amended Complaint will be dismissed
John Honovich
          ADT is in a tough spot on this one, and I as I mentioned in my article on February 12, 2021, the cost of defending this potential class action is staggering.  You can read the decision on K&K’s website under Leading Cases; its published under Florida and Texas cases:
          ADT essentially lost its motion to dismiss, prevailing on only a few issues where the Plaintiff went out on a limb. Plaintiff has enough causes of action to pursue and it will be interesting to see how this plays out. No predictions on this one.

NOTICE:  K&K has two clients looking to sell alarm accounts.  One company is near Orlando FL and the other outskirts of Miami FL.  More details in The Alarm Exchange in the Merger and Acquisition category.

To order up to date Standard Form Alarm /  Security / Fire and related Agreementsclick here:
You can check out the program and sign up here: or contact our Program Coordinator Stacy Spector, Esq at 516 747 6700 x 304.
NOTICE:  You can always read our Articles on our website at
THE ALARM EXCHANGEalarm classifieds alarm security contracts

    This area is reserved for alarm classifieds, alarm company announcements, solicitations, offers, etc. 
    There is no charge to post a listing here.Include your contact information, phone, email and web site.  If you would like to submit a post, please send an email to  To create a reciprocal link to our website, click here.

Getting on our Email List / Email Articles archived: 
    Many of you are forwarding these emails to friends or asking that others be added to the list.  Sign up for our daily newsletter here: Sign Up.  You can read articles and order alarm contracts on our web site
Ken Kirschenbaum,Esq
Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum PC
Attorneys at Law
200 Garden City Plaza
Garden City, NY 11530
516 747 6700 x 301