top of page

Practices - Security Company Services

  • This firm successfully defended a major alarm company from claims brought by its customer after a burglary occurred at the customer’s store. The customer alleged claims of fraud and conversion in an effort to avoid enforcement of the security services contract, which contained liability disclaimers and limitations on liability. The customer also alleged licensing violations in an effort to invalidate the contract. This firm succeeded in obtaining a dismissal of the fraud and conversion claims through dispositive motions. The case settled shortly before trial, after plaintiff’s representative provided testimony contradicting his own prior sworn declaration during videotaped depositions, and with motions in limine pending that may well have defeated plaintiff’s remaining claims.

  • A national security company was threatened with legal action when the insurer for client’s customer refused to pay a multi-million dollar damage claim resulting from a burglary at customer’s commercial property. Insurer contended that customer failed to procure a sufficient security system or to properly engage the system. This firm worked with counsel for the customer to demonstrate that security system was sufficient, was properly engaged, and provided appropriate signals, but that the burglary was completed before a police response could have prevented the loss. The customer received a full recovery from its insurer, and legal action against this firm’s client was entirely avoided.

  • After an employee accident, OSHA reached preliminary findings against our client for three “serious violations” of OSHA standards, which the client would be required to disclose on any public work bids, and for many private projects bids. In response to the initial notice of potential violations from OSHA, the client’s personnel provided OSHA with fabricated records. Our firm lawyers negotiated with OSHA to accept correct records with impunity, and then worked with OSHA to understand unique facts about how the accident was caused. Based on our industry research and a forthcoming approach with OSHA, the preliminary findings were vacated and OSHA found that no serious violations had occurred.

  • A major national contractor changed its corporate format, requiring it to obtain a new license from the California State Contractor’s License Board (the “Board”). The Board originally rejected the new corporate format, and the client could not make the requested changes before its license would lapse. This firm worked with counsel for the Board to obtain a thirty day extension of the client’s license to allow for the required changes to occur. Our client was able to remain operating with no disruption while all compliance issues with the Board were fully resolved.

  • The firm’s client, a national alarm company, split into two entities, business and consumer. The consumer entity became a separate, newly formed company. Because of timing issues with the California State Contractors Licensing Board, the consumer entity would have been operating as an unlicensed entity until state mandated background checks were completed. This firm worked with state agencies to gain approval pending background checks, and to obtain a valid license the day before the new company began operations.

  • This firm advised a security contractor commencing business in California to identify the licenses necessary to comply with all aspects of its planned work and service, with both the California State Contractors License Board and the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (the “BSIS”). This firm provided advice on necessary sub-specialty licenses. In addition, this firm modified the client’s standard contract to include language mandated by the Board, BSIS and pertinent statutes.

  • M&A has represented national fire alarm and security companies in litigation matters involving alleged construction defects, delays to project completion, and personal injury claims.

  • Our firm has represented a major security company in numerous cases where business customers sued following robberies.  Customers alleged that security systems or monitoring personnel did not properly detect intruders or notify customers of potential intrusions.  Our firm demonstrated that several of these thefts were conducted by customer employees who sabotaged or deactivated the security systems.

bottom of page