Vol. 13, No. 12 - July 13, 2007 This issue of the CSAA Signals is brought to you by our sponsor:
Table of Contents
CSAA Online Operators Courses Approved in NYC CSAA is pleased to announce that our Central Station Operator Level I and Advance Online courses have received New York City Fire Department approval for the education/testing requirements for Central Station Signaling Systems' Operator Certificate of Fitness (Category F40). The Bureau of Fire Prevention, Testing Unit, will add the two courses as approved training requirement. Many thanks to Ronald (Ron) Petrarca, Director of Operations, CCO, FSO at Electronix Systems Central Station Alarms, Inc., who worked so hard to get these courses approved. Would you like to give something back to the Association and the industry? Imitate Ron and help us get the online courses approved by your state. Please contact Becky Lane, CSAA Director of Membership, at 703-242-4670, x. 18 or membership@csaaul.org for additional information. CO Response Standard to be Developed The CSAA Standards Committee is hard at work writing a CO Response Standard, either to be a stand-alone ANSI document or to be incorporated into the NFPA 720 document that is currently under revision. While NFPA procedures normally would limit comments at this point in the 720 cycle only to material in the ROP document, NFPA is being somewhat more liberal at this point, with material pertaining to supervising station (i.e. central station) response.
The closing date for comments is August 31, 2007. Synnex vs. ADT appellate court decision: The New Jersey Appellate court decided the Synnex vs. ADT case on July 13, 2007 in favor of ADT. The primary question presented by this appeal is whether an exculpatory clause in a contract for the sale of a burglar alarm system, which requires the buyer to rely solely on its own insurance for any loss from theft, is contrary to public policy and therefore unenforceable in light of a statute that subjects sellers of alarm systems to licensing and regulatory controls. The Court concluded that such an exculpatory clause is not contrary to public policy because it simply allocates responsibility to the buyer of an alarm system to maintain insurance coverage, and the buyer is in the best position to know the value of its property and to insure against any loss. The court reversed the $4 million judgment in favor of Synnex and dismissed the case. The court followed the long history of prior law in New Jersey and found that the limitation of liability provision in the ADT contract is enforceable. The court rejected the lower court's decision that the exculpatory clause was invalid because the alarm dealer is licensed by the state to conduct business. The court held that the reasons for invalidating the limitation of liability in a home inspection contract (which was the primary rationale of the trial court) do not apply to the burglar alarm system contract. Does Your Company Deserve to be SDM's 2007 Dealer of the Year?
|
||||