This article originally appeared in the January 2023 issue of Security Business magazine. When sharing, don’t forget to mention Security Business magazine on LinkedIn and @SecBusinessMag on Twitter.
Imagine three scenarios where you, an electronic security provider, have three new residential customers – John, Jean and Judy – living in very different homes. Each of these scenarios represent a different type of home and a unique customer with their own budget and preferences for a security system. Let’s learn more about each customer and their homes to later examine potential liability on the part of the security provider:
John: Recently built a large, 10,000 square-foot home. It has lots of windows and doors – all potential points of entry. John contacts you because he wants a security system. Like most companies, you offer a base package with a finite number of devices – a touchscreen, keypad, three door and window sensors and a motion detector. John orders the base package and schedules an installation appointment.
At the installation, your technician discusses John’s preferred locations for the devices that were purchased. The technician then installs the devices to John’s satisfaction in the specified locations; however, in such a large home with many doors and windows, the devices in the base package do not cover all the potential points of entry. Consequently, John is advised by the technician of the option to purchase additional devices. A discussion ensues, including of cost. John declines and accepts the installation of only the devices included in the base package.
Jean: Recently moved into a small apartment that is about 700 square-feet. It has a front door and four windows – so five potential points of entry. Jean contacts you because she also wants a security system. Like John, she orders the base package and schedules an installation appointment.
At the installation, your technician discusses Jean’s preferred locations for the devices that were purchased. The technician then installs them to Jean’s satisfaction in the specified locations; however, the devices in the base package do not cover all the potential points of entry at Jean’s apartment. Two of her windows are left without a sensor. Consequently, Jean is advised by the technician of the option to purchase additional devices. A discussion ensues, including of cost. Jean decides to add only one additional device, leaving one window in Jean’s apartment without any sensor.
Judy: Recently moved into a very small apartment that is about 500 square-feet. It has a front door and two windows – so three potential points of entry. Judy contacts you because she wants a security system. Like John and Jean, she orders the base package and schedules an installation appointment.
At the installation, your technician discusses Judy’s preferred locations for the devices that were purchased. The technician then installs them to Judy’s satisfaction in the specified locations. Unlike John and Jean, the devices in the base package indeed cover all the potential points of entry in Judy’s apartment. There is no need for Judy to purchase additional devices.
Liability Analysis
If John – in his large home with many unprotected points of entry – experiences an intrusion leading to damages, personal injury or death, should your company be held liable for not installing devices at every potential point of entry? Do you have the right to foist additional devices on John – and make him pay for them? Should your company have refused to do business with John after he declined additional devices?
How about for Jean, who purchased only one additional device, but declined another – leaving one of her windows without a device? What if that window is breached during an intrusion? Should the alarm company be held liable for Jean’s choice? Is she any different from John?
How about Judy? She did not purchase any additional devices, because the devices in the base package covered her potential points of entry.
Would it be good public policy for the law to require you to walk away from customers like John and Jean, but do business only with Judy?
These answers should be obvious.
As a matter of law and common sense, alarm companies cannot compel customers to purchase additional devices, or to use the system in a particular way (such as arming interior motion detectors, when appropriate); in fact, they cannot even compel customers to use the system at all.
Customers are vested with the absolute right to choose the system that is best for them or to choose no system at all. They can always add devices (at an additional cost) either before the installation, during the installation, or at any point after the installation. You should make them aware of this – although it is also self-evident.
I have had multiple cases throughout the country where the customer experienced an intrusion on an entry point for which the customer did not purchase an additional device. In turn, they blamed the alarm company – suggesting that they were unaware they could buy additional devices (which makes no sense and was not true), or they supposedly empowered the technician to install devices wherever the technician deemed appropriate. This suggests that customers are willing to pay indiscriminately – which they never are in any industry.
Alarm companies are sales organizations. They sell equipment and services. More equipment and enhanced services means more sales. It also means more protection for the customer.
Whether it was John, Jean or Judy, they all had the choice to purchase what they wanted, what they could afford, and what worked best for their needs and expectations. They may have bad choices or good choices, but the law does not and should not impute those choices to the alarm company. To do so would require alarm companies to walk away from millions of customers for fear of liability, would make alarm companies insurers (which they are not), and would undermine public policy and public safety.
Timothy J. Pastore, Esq., is a Partner in the New York office of Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP (www.mmwr.com), where he is Vice-Chair of the Litigation Department. Before entering private practice, Mr. Pastore was an officer and Judge Advocate General (JAG) in the U.S. Air Force and a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice. Reach him at (212) 551-7707 or by e-mail at [email protected].
