A few weeks ago, in response to a Georgia appellate court decision upholding a verdict against Monitronics in a multi-million dollar case, Ken Kirschenbaum, an industry attorney, posed a simple question on his email newsletter to subscribers: "Why should an alarm contract be drafted so that judges find so much confusion?"
It's a fair question. There was little consensus among the appellate court judges, and some of the judges who concurred with the original verdict cited different reasons for doing so. While the case is not yet settled (it may yet move to a higher court), the implication seems to be that the exculpatory and limitation of liability provisions in the contract were not established in a manner that could provide adequate protection.
This is an issue that stands to remain relevant for central station alarm monitoring companies everywhere. The case, too, is a big enough deal that Kirschenbaum himself updated some of his standard form contracts to make the protective provisions more enforceable, and account for some of the worst case scenarios which surfaced in the Veasley v. Monitronics case.
From Kirschenbaum’s newsletter:
“Why did I make the changes even though the Monitronics case is likely to be appealed and hopefully reversed? Because the same issues raised in Monitronics have been and will continue to be addressed in courts all over the country. Courts are looking for ways to impose duties on the alarm companies and avoid contract enforcement.”
Part of what makes the Monitronics case so legally murky, and even intimidating from a contractual standpoint, is that the end result, as Kirschenbaum points out, was personal injury. What’s more, the injury was caused by service rather than equipment negligence, the court determined.
Kirschenbaum’s piece is worth a read in its entirety because it discusses the sheer breadth of considerations that have to be made when designing a contract with clear and enforceable protections. You can subscribe to his newsletter here.