Customer Claims ADT Admitted "Obvious Mistake," Lawsuit Sent to Arbitration
An ADT customer whose home security system failed to alert him to a burglary will not be able to sue the company for damages in court, and he must pursue his claims in private arbitration, a judge ruled.
The decision helps ADT limit potential damages it could be found liable for in the case. The customer alleged that a company representative who inspected his property told him the incident, resulting in nearly $150,000 in losses, was due to an "obvious mistake" by ADT.
In this report, we examine the customer's case, the judge's ruling, and the impact on the parties.
Executive *******
********* ******* ****** ******* * ******* was **** ** ***** *** ***** through * ***** ****** ******* ****, which *** ******** ** ** ********* with ***** ***** ********* — *** regular **** ******* **** ********* ***** instead. ** *** ************** *** ********* the ******** **** *** *** ****** was ** "******* *******," ********* ********'* *********.
****** ****** * ******* ** $***,***.** in ******* ******* ** **** ** civil *********, ******** ******* "** ** amount *********** ** ****** **********" *** an ********** ********* *** ** "******* a ****** ******** ** ****** *** potentially ******** ********[*] ********* ********* ************ of ******** *******."
*******,* ***** ***** ** ******** ******** ** *********** ****** ** *** contract ******** ****** ** ***** *** dispute ** ******* ***********, ***** ********* and *** ****** ** ******* ********* damages *** **** ******* **** ** court.
*********** ********** **** ****** *********** ** home ******** ******* **********, *********** ***** options *** ********* *** *** **** been ******* *** ** **********, *******, or ***** *******. ***** *** ********** may ** ****** **** *** **** print, ********* *** ********* ******** ** have ******* **** *********.
****** *** ***** ** **** ** recover ******* **** ***, *** *** impact ** *** ******* ** ******** practices **** ****** ** **** ******* than ** ** ********* ******** ** court.
Similar ****
***** ***** ********* *** *********** ********** also **** **** **** ** ******** ** * ****** *********** ******* **** *** ******* **** negligently ********* ** *** ********, ******** for * *****-**.****** *******, ***** ******* *** *********** *** **********,***** *** ********* ******** ****. * ***** ** currently *********** ******'* ******* ** ****** arbitration.
ADT ******** ******
******, *** **** * $*.* ******* home ** ******, **********, ***** * lawsuit ** ********* **** ******** ********* of ************* ********* ***** ******** ***, ********* ** ********** ******** *** professional *****, ********** ************'* ****-******* ******** ******** ***, ********* *****************, ****** ** ********, and ******** ****** ** **********.
********* ** *** *********, *** ********* inquired ***** ********* * ******** ****** from *** ** ******** ****. ** alleged **** *** ********* *** **** options, *** ** "********** ******* ** purchase ********* ***'* *** ** ******* Hybrid *** *** ******** ****** **** the *** *** ** ****** ****."
*** ****** *** ***** ***** **** sensors, ***** *** * "******** ******* that ********* ******* ***** *** ******** of ***** ** *** *** *** wife's ****** *******," ********* ** *** complaint. ** ******* **** ** ***** ADT *************** ***** ********** ****** ******* in *** ******* ** ****, *** they ******* *** *** ******* ***** be *********** ** **** ******* ** the ***** ***** *******.
***** ** *** *** ****** **** traveling ** ******** ****, ** ******** broke **** *** **** ******* *** master ******* ****, ****** *******. *** thieves **** *** **** **** **** $145,000 ***** ** *****, ********* $**,*** in **** *** ******** ******** *****, according ** *** *********.
***** ** ****'* ******** ** *** break-in, ****** ******* **** ** ****** security ******* ** *** ********. ** detailed ** *** *********, ** *** employee ***** ********* *** ******** *** determined **** *** ***** ***** ******* were *** ********* ** ******** ** the ****** *******. ****** ******* *** employee **** *** ***'* ***** ********** would **** ** ** ******** ** the "******* *******."
Ruling ** ***********
** ******** ****, *.*. ******** ***** James *. ***** ***** **** ** arbitration ********* ** ******'* *********** ******** contract **** *** ******* *** **** it *** *****, ***********, *** *** "unconscionable." *** ***** ******* ***'* ****** to ****** *********** *** ****** *** case ******* *** ********** ** ******* arbitration.
*** ***** ***** **** ***** *** offered *** *********** ******** ******** ** a “****-**-**-*****-** *****” *** ****** ***** had *** *********** ** ********* ** opt *** ** ******* **********, ** also ****'* ****** ** *** ****** and ****'* ********* ** **. *** clause *** "*** **** ******" ** the ******** *** "** ********* ********* in * ********** ******* ** *** residential ******** ********, ********* “***********” ******* in *** **** *** **** ****," the ***** *****.
*** ******* ****** "***** ** '*******' in *** *********** ******** ******** **** is '******* ** *** ********** ************ of *********' ** ******* *********," ********* to *** ********.
****** **** ****** **** *** ****** should ** ******* **** *** *********, but *** ***** ***** *** ***** claims ******* **** **** ***** ** findings ** *** ****** ***** *******.
Impact ** *** ******* *** **** *****
*********** ******** ********** ** ********* ********** by ******* **** ** ********** *****, limiting *********, *** ******** *** *********** and ******* ** ** *******. *** Washington *.*.-***** ******** ****** ********* ***** in ***** ************ ******* ******* ** ********* ** arbitration *** ***** ** ******* **** in *****. *********** ****** **** ********* cannot ** ********.
***** ******, * ****** *** ******, told **** **** *** ********* ***'* be ********* *** ****** ******* ** was **** ** ******* ***** *** federal *** "** ********* ** ***********."
****** **** ****** *** ******* ***** the **** ************ *********** *** ********* ******** ***., **** ***** ** ****, * for-profit ************ **** ******* *********** ******* resolution ******** ** *** **. ****** will ******** ** **** ** ********** requiring * ****** ** ***********, ****** said.