ADT Wins Fire Death Suit But Faces Appeal

By: Dan Gelinas, Published on Dec 05, 2018

ADT/Protection 1 has won a wrongful death court case in which it was sued by the estate of a deceased customer. However, the attorney for the deceased customer's family tells IPVM this is not the end of the litigation.

At the heart of the contention is that ADT / Protection 1 did not dispatch police on either of the two signals it received during the fire and new information the Plaintiff shared with IPVM that the customer had contracted for fire monitoring

In November 2018, US District Court, Kansas dismissed a wrongful death lawsuit comprising 7 complaints against ADT/Protection 1. The suit was filed on behalf of Frost's young son, 4-years-old at the time of her death by an August 15, 2016 fire in her Topeka, Kansas home. The Plaintiff says the Defendant failed in its duties to Frost. However, the court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss on all 7 counts.

While ADT declined to comment, IPVM spoke with the attorneys for the Plaintiff, an independent legal expert, and several central stations.

Based on those interviews, examine:

  • Background
  • Judgment/ruling
  • Plaintiff attorney statement
  • Industry legal expert statement
  • No comment from ADT
  • Central stations say ADT acted appropriately
  • Fire monitoring included, says plaintiff
  • Ethical or reputational questions

Executive Summary

The key contentions we found are:

  • Should ADT have been responsible for responding to those signals? Multiple central stations say no but some say yes.
  • Did the customer have a fire monitoring contract? New Plaintiff information says yes but the system at the time of the fire, did not have it active, and the customer had moved in between.
  • What responsibility, legally, ethically or reputationally does ADT or other monitoring companies have when tragedies like this happen?

Background

Get Notified of Video Surveillance Breaking News
Get Notified of Video Surveillance Breaking News

News stories like the one below covered the fire, Frost's death, and the lawsuit:

While the newscaster said ADT "received numerous alarms about the fire," there were only two signals received by ADT during the fire. One was a tamper alarm and the other was a supervisory signal. Neither signal was "about the fire," as this was a security-only system.

The 7 counts brought against ADT/Protection 1 included wrongful death, Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA) Violation Deceptive act and/or practices, as well as breach of implied and express warranties.

The attorneys for the Plaintiff, Leawood, KS-based Rouse Frets Gentile Rhodes, LLC., detailed in the complaint the timetable of events the night Frost died. The following is a digest from "Facts Common to All Counts" and covers items 15-28, beginning on page 5 of the complaint:

  • 1:30 AM—Defendant receives a Tamper Alarm for the Dining Room Glass Break sensor
  • 1:32 AM—Defendant receives an Expansion Module Failure signal
  • 1:43 AM—Defendant makes 2 unsuccessful attempts to call Frost
  • 1:49 AM—Defendant makes 1 unsuccessful attempt to call Frost's grandmother, the 1st person on Frost's contact list
  • 2:01 AM—Defendant makes 1 unsuccessful attempt to call Frost
  • 2:04 AM—Defendant makes 1 unsuccessful attempt to call Frost's grandmother
  • 2:04 AM—Defendant "Full Clears" all signals from the Frost residence, meaning no further action will be taken and the signals and call attempts will be logged in the audit trail.
  • 2:52 AM—City of Topeka, Public Works Department employees notice smoke coming from the Frost home and call 911
  • 2:58 AM—First responders begin to arrive at the scene
  • 3:07 AM—First responders find Frost facedown and unconscious on the hallway floor. They remove her and begin emergency medical treatment while en route to Stormont Vail Health Care In Topeka where she succumbs to her injuries and dies.

On Count 1, Wrongful Death, the Plaintiff claims that ADT/Protection 1 had a duty and an obligation to notify authorities on alarms if the homeowner was unreachable. They did not do so. The Plaintiff maintains that since Frost was still alive even an hour and a half after the first signal was sent to the Defendant, she may have lived had police been sent to investigate the tamper alarm on the Glass Break Sensor at 1:30 AM.

Count 1 also finds fault with the fact that ADT/Protection 1's calls to Frost and Frost's grandmother showed up as "Unlisted" on caller ID. The Plaintiff told IPVM this lack of identification directly led to Frost's grandmother not answering the phone:

[They] called using an unlisted number, during election season, in a state in which residents are inundated with political robocalls from unlisted numbers. While Ms. Frost was likely incapacitated due to smoke inhalation by the time Protection One got around to calling her house, her grandmother thought the calls to her were political robocalls and didn’t answer.

On Count 2, survival action and negligence, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's negligence was wanton and directly caused the decedent suffering before leading to her death:

In bringing Count 3, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, the Plaintiff cites other promises made by the Defendant on its website regarding dispatch of authorities on signals if the homeowner is unable to be reached as seen in this excerpt from the complaint:

The Defendant was unable to notify the homeowner on the alarm, so per their own advertised protocol, the Plaintiff asserts, ADT should have dispatched police.

The damages the Plaintiff sought were unspecified on Count 3.

Count 4 states that because of the alleged fraudulent behavior of the Defendant, the Plaintiff claimed there was a breach of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA) which aims to protect consumers from deceptive business practices. The purpose of the act is spelled out in this excerpt from the Kansas Legislature site:

Furthermore, Count 4 claims that because the Defendant's offered monitoring service was "useless" during the fire that killed Frost, it was useless during the life of the Defendant's contract with the decedent. Based on this, the Plaintiff sought specified damages of $10,000/day for every day the contract was in effect, a period based on documents provided to IPVM by the Plaintiff of at least 5 years.

This leads to a likely damages ask for Count 4 of at least $18.25 million.

Counts 6 & 7 sought damages for alleged breach of implied and express warranty, respectively and stem from the Plaintiff's allegations that the Defendant warrantied that they were fit to monitor and dispatch as needed. The implication was that they use their expertise to know when to dispatch emergency responders and that they would not use an unlisted number when calling to notify on alarms as seen in this excerpt from Count 6:

Similarly, the Plaintiff alleges the Defendant expressly warranted that upon system activation, they would dispatch first responders if the customer was unreachable:

Damages sought for counts 6 & 7 were unspecified.

Judgment/Ruling

The US District Court for the District of Kansas issued its final judgment for the case on November 19, 2018. It granted ADT's motion to dismiss on the grounds that its contract with Frost, which they say she signed on March 12, 2014, was binding and governed all aspects of the relationship. It is this contract which the Defendant claims trumps all the Plaintiff's allegations and renders ADT basically untouchable. First and foremost, all the counts in the complaint, regardless of what they are, are time-barred by a 1-year statute of limitations as seen in this passage from the final judgment:

The court explains in the final judgment that the negligence claims related to the language on the Protection 1 website are overcome because the Defendant's initial contract with Frost supersedes all other considerations:

For counts 3, 4, and 5, which comprise all the Plaintiff's fraud and KCPA violations claims, the court notes that the Plaintiff failed to argue with particularity the time of the violation and the precise nature of the damage by fraud that Frost sustained:

Finally, for counts 6 & 7, the Plaintiff's warranty complaints, the court notes that again, the original contract between the parties supersedes any other promises or warranties, implied or express:

Plaintiff Attorney Statement

[link no longer available]

IPVM spoke with Randy Rhodes [link no longer available] of Rouse Frets White Goss Gentile Rhodes, P.C.

Rhodes said the real problem in this tragic situation is one of end users signing contracts they don't understand:

Unsophisticated people sign ADT’s ridiculously one-sided, adhesion contract, not realizing that they are relinquishing their rights to seek redress in court if and when ADT fails to perform under the contract. ADT even sneaks in a short statute of limitation that no reasonable consumer will understand. These types of business practices are unconscionable, in my opinion.

Industry Legal Expert Statement

Though Ken Kirschenbaum [link no longer available] of Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum, P.C., who wrote an extensive piece of coverage detailing how ADT's contract protected it, notes in his article that the facts of this case "are not flattering to ADT," he still feels their legal team performed admirably as seen in this quote from his article:

ADT really knocked this case right out of the park. Of course we don't celebrate the unfortunate circumstances that gave rise to the case, a residential fire resulting in death, but many legal issues were addressed... Giving credit where credit is due, I have to assume that ADT defense counsel clearly laid out the defense.

Furthermore, Kirschenbaum said in his interview with IPVM that the industry distancing itself as culpable when there is a loss is standard and accepted across the industry:

The alarm industry needs to insulate itself from claims arising as a result of alarm equipment or alarm service failure because the losses and exposure is disproportionate to the compensation paid to the alarm company. That is the accepted rationale and it has been repeated and approved consistently in courts throughout the United States and elsewhere.

However, while Kirschenbaum applauds the protective contract, he did feel ADT had not performed as it should have, in light of their stated protocol to dispatch if the home-owner is unreachable:

According to the contract and policy, ADT should have called the police when it was unable to verify the alarm.

No Comment from ADT

ADT initially said it would consult with its legal department and speak with us, but did not respond to repeated requests for an interview.

Central Stations Say ADT Acted Appropriately

IPVM spoke with a number of central stations who agree with Kirschenbaum's assertion that the industry distancing itself from liability is the norm. Morgan Hertel [link no longer available], VP of Technology and Innovation at Rapid Response Monitoring Services Inc, pointed out first and foremost that the system in place was not a fire alarm system, and one can not expect a burglar alarm system to protect them from a fire. He also noted that technically, neither of the signals received were typically dispatchable:

My understanding is that they received a contact id event E383 Sensor Tamper. This is classified under Sensor Trouble conditions for burglary alarm devices. The proper response for any E3XX code is to notify someone about a maintenance or repair problem. If the industry sent the PD to every unresolved E200-E300 range of events we would bury every law enforcement agency with false alarms in a few hours.

Other central stations who wished to remain anonymous agreed that the correct protocol on both signals received was to notify the customer, but not dispatch.

Fire Monitoring Included, Says Plaintiff

According to the Plaintiff's attorney, the Plaintiff will appeal the court's decision:

The Frost case is far from over. We respectfully believe the district court judge erred in dismissing the claims against ADT and we intend to appeal that decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Per Frost's Alarm Services Agreement dated March of 2014, she did not elect fire alarm protection. At the time of the fire, she only had a burglar alarm system that is not designed nor UL-listed for detecting and signaling central stations of a fire.

However, the plaintiff's attorney shared with IPVM documents they had just found that show Frost originally did have a smoke detector and 24-hour fire monitoring selected in 2011 on her installation certificate and alarm system proposal when she was preparing to move to a new home and relocate her system. Rhodes said to his knowledge Frost never asked to have her system downgraded. According to Rhodes, the system in place at her home after she moved was not the system she wanted and originally contracted for in 2011:

There was supposed to be a fire alarm included with Ms. Frost’s services. When she moved and transferred her service to her new home, Protection One failed to make sure the smoke alarms were moved and were operational. It seems to me that if someone has contracted for something and is being charged for that service, the equipment ought to work as promised.

These documents are definitely at odds with the 2014 Alarm Services Agreement supplied by the Defendant who makes no mention of Frost's status as a customer prior to 2014.

Ethical or Reputational Questions

Beyond the legal issues, the case raises ethical and reputational questions. Certainly, monitoring companies like ADT advocate they offer premium services above and beyond growing DIY offerings. ADT has numerous commercials where they celebrate their saving customers from fires. For example, this commercial about a Kansas City, MO customer:

Certainly, when ADT and other monitoring companies help save lives with quick response and intervention it should be celebrated.

However, when customers die, despite signals being sent to the monitoring company and potentially a fire alarm contract being in place, what responsibility should the monitoring company have?

For the Plaintiff attorney's part, he explained to IPVM that "No condolences have been extended by ADT," and that "We are not aware that ADT intends to undertake any remedial action to prevent a situation like this from happening in the future."

Of course, ADT is likely limited by concerns of the ongoing litigation. If ADT does take any action, we will update this report accordingly.

Comments (21) : Members only. Login. or Join.

Related Reports

IPVM Rejects Feevr's Improper Threats And Demands on May 04, 2020
IPVM categorically rejects Feevr's improper threats and demands submitted...
UK Court Rules Police Facial Recognition Needs Reform on Sep 01, 2020
A UK court has ruled that the South Wales Police use of facial recognition is...
Alabama Schools Million Dollar Hikvision Fever Camera Deal on Aug 11, 2020
The Baldwin County, Alabama public schools purchased a $1 million, 144-camera...
Beware Of Feevr on Apr 14, 2020
Beware of "Feevr". The company is marketing a 'Feevr' solution that...
Uniview Heat-Tracker Temperature Screening Series Examined on Apr 22, 2020
Uniview is marketing #UNVagainstCOVID19 with their Heat-Tracker series,...
FDA "Does Not Intend to Object" To Unapproved Fever Detection Cameras If No 'Undue Risk' on Apr 17, 2020
The US FDA has declared it will not go after the many companies marketing...
FLIR Suspends Agreement With Feevr on May 07, 2020
Thermal manufacturer FLIR has suspended its agreement with Feevr (aka...
Dahua Taunts Australian Government, Continues To Sell Illegal Fever Cameras on Aug 10, 2020
Dahua is effectively taunting the Australian government by continuing to sell...
Integrator Acquisitions 'A Good Market' During COVID-19, Says Greybeards on Jul 28, 2020
Industry broker Ron Davis of the "Greybeards" says that the integrator and...
Milestone Presents XProtect On AWS on May 04, 2020
Milestone presented its XProtect on AWS offering at the April 2020 IPVM New...
Genetec CEO Declares "We Don't Negotiate Payment With Patent Trolls" on Aug 11, 2020
Are patent trolls like terrorists? Genetec's CEO is coming out strongly...
ADI Branch Burglary on Apr 03, 2020
A security systems distributor branch is an odd target for burglary but that...
US Surgeon General Unwittingly Showcases Sanctioned Dahua Temperature System on Jul 28, 2020
The US' top public health spokesperson, the Surgeon General, posted a photo...
Dahua USA Admits Thermal Solutions "Qualify As Medical Devices" on Jul 02, 2020
Dahua USA has issued a press release admitting a controversial point in the...
School District Admits Not Following FDA Guidelines With 144, No Blackbody, Hikvision Fever Cameras on Aug 21, 2020
The Baldwin County School District has admitted it is not following FDA...

Recent Reports

Mobile Access Control Usage Statistics 2020 on Sep 21, 2020
Most smartphones can be used as access control credentials, but how...
Axis Compares Fever Camera Sellers to 9/11 on Sep 18, 2020
Axis Communications, the West's largest surveillance camera manufacturer, has...
Chilean Official Investigated for Motorola And Hikvision Contracts on Sep 17, 2020
A corruption investigation is underway in Chile after a crime prevention...
Huawei HiSilicon Production Shut Down on Sep 17, 2020
Huawei HiSilicon chips are no longer being manufactured or supplied to...
Virtual ISC West and GSX+ Exhibiting Contrasted on Sep 17, 2020
Both ISC West and ASIS GSX are going virtual this year, just weeks apart, but...
X.Labs Sues FLIR on Sep 16, 2020
X.Labs, the maker of Feevr, has sued FLIR, the publicly traded thermal...
Video Surveillance 101 September Course - Last Chance on Sep 16, 2020
Today is the last chance to sign up for the Fall Video Surveillance 101...
No Blackbody Mistake, Half Million Dollar, Hikvision Fever Camera System in Georgia on Sep 16, 2020
A Georgia school district touted buying Hikvision fever screening "about...
Costar Technologies / Arecont H1 2020 Financials Examined on Sep 16, 2020
Costar's financial results have been hit by the coronavirus with the company...
Startup Cawamo Presents Live Alerts With Edge AI and Cloud VMS on Sep 15, 2020
Cawamo, an Israeli edge-to-cloud analytics and VMS startup, presented its...
Favorite Access Control Credentials 2020 on Sep 15, 2020
Credential choice is more debated than ever, with hacking risk for 125kHz and...
Dangerous Hikvision Fever Screening Marketing In Africa on Sep 15, 2020
A multi-national African Hikvision distributor is marketing dangerously...
New Products Show Fall 2020 Announced - Register Now on Sep 14, 2020
IPVM's sixth online show will feature New Products from over 25...
Hanwha 8K / 33MP Camera Tested on Sep 14, 2020
Hanwha Techwin has released an 8K / 33MP resolution camera, the TNB-9000 with...