

still more on ADT's customer going to crime scene and what training should you be doing / booth meetings at ISC 
March 27, 2019
Notice:  ISC West.  Private meeting times are booked.  Concierge Clients should call our  Concierge Program Coordinator Stacy Spector,Esq at 516 747 6700 x 304 to arrange a private meeting and consultation. 
Open Meet and greet schedule at ISC:
Wednesday 11:00 am – COPS booth ; 2:30 pm – Avant guard booth; 3:30 pm – All American Monitoring booth
Thursday 11:00 am – Rapid booth;  2:30 pm – J. Krug booth  
            I think some people might be forgetting that today's systems do not simply alert the central station of the emergency, but simultaneously sends a text message to others associated with the system.  Considering the remote services, such as Total Connect or that generate a notification to the subscriber, and others who subscriber has setup to receive such notifications, there are now more similar hazardous scenarios possible.  So, a subscriber, family member, or employee who the Central Station may not have reached during their event response, might have received the notice on their mobile device and may choose to go to the scene.  The Central Station usually notifies the subscriber, or others, after notifying the police, and advises the subscribers et. al. that "the police have been notified" or "the police have been dispatched." However, what does this mean to the subscriber(s)?  While the subscriber(s) hear the police have been notified or dispatched, it might be that the police are too busy to immediately respond to the signal, but the subscribers might not be aware of this, as most believe the response is immediate in all cases.  It's been my experience that if the police respond before the subscriber, and find evidence of a burglary, they clear the building and remain at the scene until a responsible party arrives. But, this may not always be the case, especially in jurisdictions where police are shorthanded and cannot afford tie up police to wait for someone to arrive to secure the building.
            Could this be something that they should be addressed in the Disclaimer Notice?  
            When a subscriber lists other people to be called in the event of alarm activation, are these people covered as third parties in the agreement? They receive little or no training, but these other people are now being included in the sequence of alarm notifications and may take some type of action.  In most cases, these people have only discussed, with the subscriber, what to do should they get a call from the Central Station or get a text message from a remote service on their phone, but may respond to the scene similar to the plaintiff in the ADT case.
            I see this as similar to the hazards of "self-monitoring" when the subscriber prefers to cut out the Central Station and decides to act in their place.  Imagine a homeowner receiving a text message of a burglary signal while away from home and asking their neighbor or a relative to respond to the scene to check it out.
Anonymous Please
            You raise excellent points.  The answer is not in the Disclaimer Notice but in proper subscriber training, something that I suspect is rarely done. The Disclaimer Notice  is used as confirmation that the subscriber is not getting equipment and services that are available,  and other issues, but not customer training, though there is a statement that the subscriber was shown how to use the system.  But this topic is about more than a subscriber learning how to set the system.  I've commented many times on the importance of both you and the subscriber understanding how a central station will respond to the multitude of signals a panel communicates.  Signals from burg, fire, temp, water, supervisory, communication failure, failure to test, panic, med alert, .... I am sure there are more .... we  haven't mentioned audio or video monitoring.  As an alarm professional you may take for granted how a signal will be handled, and you may think that how someone being notified of a signal will or should respond.  But subscribers are not security or fire professionals.  Why should they know how to respond.  What if they instinctively respond in a dangerous way, such as trying to put out a fire, or trying to confront a burglar?  What if the central station operator did exactly what the script says, which is simply alert the subscriber to a signal, and the subscriber behaves in a way that you certainly would have counseled against had the topic come up?  
            You recommended and installed the system.  You notified of an emergency situation.  You set in motion the situation which the subscriber reacted to.  And you didn't properly train the subscriber in an appropriate response.  In fact you offered no training at all.  Do you owe any obligation to the subscriber?  I don't know.  I do know that I just got a new car, all kinds of gadgets, and the delivery guy did try to explain how everything worked.  If I drive off and paying with the wrong buttons damage the car or get into an accident because I am distracted, is that the car dealer's fault?  Maybe not a great analogy.  But why would you assume that your subscriber knows what to do if an alarm goes off?  Recall the case I [successfully] defended when the subscriber, hearing the alarm go off, hung out and finally jumped out her second story window, breaking her back.  Who would have guessed that response?  
            We don't know what the ADT operator said other than what the Judge reported, which was, go to the crime scene and wait for the cops.  The subscriber went, as instructed, and got robbed when he got there.  The operator could just as easily said, "there's an alarm at your business, we dispatched the cops".  The subscriber could have gone to the crime scene anyway, just as fast, and with the same consequence.  But at least the operator didn't tell him to.  Now the only claim is that the alarm dealer didn't really train  the subscriber on how to respond to an alarm signal.  Again, you may think it's common sense or second nature, but I remind you that the courts view your customers as "the least sophisticated consumers", basically idiots.  So how would an idiot react?  Unfortunately not so dumb as to not seek out a lawyer to sue you for something, anything.  Offer to train your subscribers on the use of the alarm system and how to best react to potential signals.  Someone should publish a pamphlet [and put my name on it].  


NOTICE:  You can always read our Articles on our website at
THE ALARM EXCHANGEalarm classifieds alarm security contracts


Ken Kirschenbaum,Esq
Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum PC
Attorneys at Law
200 Garden City Plaza
Garden City, NY 11530
516 747 6700 x 301