the court instruct the jury on the law applicable to the evidence under the issues presented.” Ruiz v. Cold Storage & Insulation Contractors, Inc., 306 So.2d 153, 154 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). In the instant case, Foreline, having presented evidence that USB had accepted the security systems as designed and installed, and that any defects in the system were patent and were known or should have been known by USB, was entitled to a jury instruction based on Slavin. Scott argues that a jury instruction based on Slavin is not necessary as this is a “products liability” case and the security and video surveillance systems were products, not structural improvements to the real property. We find no merit in Scott’s argument. See, e.g., Equibank v. U.S. I.R.S., 749 F.2d 1176, 1179 (5th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). See also Travelers Ins. Co. v. Guardian Alarm
holding that alarm systems from the societal viewpoint are not movable they are electrical installations which become a component part of the building or construction to which they are attached holding that statutory provisions cannot be read standing alone instead they must be construed in light of the entire act of which they are a part holding that claims are related if they involve a common core of facts or they are based on related legal theories holding that only defendants who can allege they are actually innocent meaning they did not commit the crimes for which they are convicted may bring a petition for relief under crim proc  8301 holding that when regulations are intended to have different purposes and are not dependent on each other they are not intertwined