Since it talks about $4.5 million, the case went to a verdict. I'm guessing it went something like this. Alarm company either admits being negligent, or is found to be negligent after a trial. Alarm company then says, "Who should we make our $500 check out to?" Other side then presents some kind of legal argument to the judge on why the limitation of liability provisions shouldn't apply. The judge likes the argument, declares those contract provisions invalid, and enters judgment for the full amount awarded during the trial.
Lawyers keep finding new loopholes. There have been previous cases in New Jersey upholding the limitation of liability provisions in alarm contracts, except in cases of "willful and wanton misconduct." So, either this judge just didn't follow the law, or the alarm company did something exceptionally bad, or some lawyer figured out a new reason why the limitation of liability shouldn't be enforced. I'm very interested to see why this case came out the way it did, but the judge's opinion doesn't seem to be available online.
This is only the opinion of one trial court. It doesn't have any value as precedent. Only appellate decisions are good for that.
I checked Kirschenbaum's website, and surprisingly, there isn't any info on this case.
You're well connected in the industry. Let us know what you can find out.
- badenov