This article originally appeared in the November 2023 issue of Security Business magazine. When sharing, don’t forget to mention Security Business magazine on LinkedIn and @SecBusinessMag on Twitter.
Security integrators deal with many different types of people, including people for whom English is not their first language. This begs the question of how far a security company must go to ensure that a customer fully understands their security system, on-site guidance from technicians, telephone calls from alarm monitoring operators, etc.
How do you handle a customer who has a limited or no understanding of the English language?
A few years ago, my client, a large security company, was sued by a husband and wife (who I will call plaintiffs or Mr. and Mrs. H). The plaintiffs emigrated decades earlier from China. They raised their children in the United States and ran a local Chinese restaurant for many years; however, they never really learned English. This became a fascinating issue in the case.
The Background
The plaintiffs alleged that my client failed to alert them to a burglary in their home. The perpetrator broke through a sliding glass door, traveled through a lower floor living room, up a set of stairs (past a motion detector), across a foyer and into the master bedroom. The perpetrator took a safe, dragged it through the foyer and out the front door. It was the only item stolen.
The plaintiffs first told the police that the safe contained $400,000 of cash and valuables. As the litigation progressed, that number increased to nearly $1 million. In other words, they had no idea what they had in the safe – only that it was growing!
Three years earlier, my clients took over an existing system at the residence and entered into a written, English language contract with the plaintiffs. Over the years, the system generated alarms that resulted in calls to Mrs. H’s cellphone (on which my client’s app also resided); in fact, in a 12-day period in July 2019, eight alarms occurred at the residence, resulting in eight calls to Mrs. H from alarm monitoring operators. The alarm operators spoke in English, and Mrs. H responded in broken English (although she later denied under oath that she can speak English).
In all of these calls, Mrs. H seemingly declined to have the police dispatched. Because these signals were deemed to be false alarms from a motion detector facing the stairs, Mrs. H contacted my client and requested service. The next day, a technician met with Mrs. H at the residence and inspected the alarm system, including the motion detector. After that service call, the system did not trigger further false alarms (more on this later).
The Burglary
Two months later, the burglary occurred. Over a period of several minutes, the system sent a series of graphical motion detector alerts directly to Mrs. H’s phone – including from the same motion detector facing the stairs. When the front door was opened, the system went into alarm, and an alarm monitoring operator called Mrs. H to report the front door alarm.
As before, Mrs. H declined to have the police dispatched. This is despite having received six prior alerts on the same phone she used to answer the alarm monitoring operator’s call. Mrs. H then went home to investigate the alarm. Upon arriving, she triggered another alarm, leading to multiple verification attempts by the monitoring company and an eventual police dispatch.
Meanwhile, Mrs. H observed that the safe was missing, sought help from a neighbor, and called 911 herself. Police were dispatched, but the burglar was never captured or identified.
Mr. and Mrs. H sued my client for willful and wanton breach of contract, negligence and ordinary breach of contract. My client raised various legal and factual defenses – resulting in our complete victory at the summary judgment stage (before trial).
The Fallout
Back to that fateful service call that happened two months before the burglary: The technician had a conversation with the customer about what was causing the repeated false alarms – in this case, a faulty motion detector. He offered to replace the unit and quoted a price. Upon hearing the price, Mrs. H declined to replace the motion detectors, as was her right. After explaining, the technician put the motion detector in notification-only status, and he showed Mrs. H how to use the app to self-monitor the device and avoid false alarms. Had Mrs. H agreed to pay for a replacement, this would not have been necessary.
In the litigation, Mrs. H (through a translator) admitted that she spoke to the technician during the service call but denied that they discussed a replacement motion detector or that she declined based on price. However, she also admitted repeatedly under oath (again, through a translator) that she does not speak or fully understand English.
Did Mrs. H understand the telephone calls she had with our alarm monitoring operators? Did Mrs. H understand the discussion she had with our technician during the fateful service call? Did she make an informed choice? What legal obligation, if any, did my client have to present information to Mrs. H in a language she understood (bearing in mind that, even the certified translator provided in the litigation had difficulty speaking with Mr. and Mrs. H because they speak a very unique dialect).
While the law is unsettled on these issues, and may give greater rights to Spanish-speaking customers in some states, there is no broad requirement that a company has to provide information in the customer’s preferred language. Instead, the market decides such things – if there is a large enough market for sales to customers who speak a specific language, the market will demand that information be provided in a comprehensible way.
Here, the technician credibly explained the options, documented the service call, and did all he could to meet the needs of the customer. While it is regrettable if Mrs. H earnestly did not understand, the technician met his obligation and was prepared to testify about the information he presented. Mrs. H, on the other hand, had a direct economic incentive to say that she did not understand. This would help excuse her choice not to buy a replacement device.
We won this case at the summary judgment stage based on solid legal and factual arguments. We also won because of a fundamental recognition by the court that security integrators cannot compel their customers to buy replacement devices, cannot compel customers to learn how their alarm systems works, and cannot present information in every conceivable language or dialect. While Mr. and Mrs. H deserve our sympathy, our victory in the litigation was a proper and just result.
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].
