U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. ADT Security Services, Inc., 134 So.3d 477 (Fla. 2d DCA Jan. 22, 2014).October 24, 2014 | Category: Subro News and Cases
After paying the insured’s claim for stolen equipment, the property insurer filed a subrogation action against the security company that provided the alarm system for the premises. It was alleged that the alarm company negligently failed to advise the property owner that the analog-based security system installed would stop transmitting signals after the Federal Communications Commission transitioned to digital systems, negligently failed to advise that the security system would stop transmitting once after the FCC transition occurred and negligently failed to replace the analog system with a digital system in conjunction with that transition. The security company relied on a waiver of subrogation provision in the contract with the property owner, and argued that the action was either barred altogether or the provision limited its liability to $1,000. The trial court found that, because the case was predicated on an alleged negligent performance under the contract, the contractual provision applied and dismissed the case as barred. The appellate court disagreed. It was determined that, because the property owner entered into the contract without knowledge that the security system would be rendered ineffective upon the FCC transition, such allegations constituted a negligent misrepresentation claim. This was critical because such a claim exists outside the scope of the contract. As a consequence, the waiver of subrogation provision did not apply to bar that claim. U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. ADT Security Services, Inc., 134 So.3d 477 (Fla. 2d DCA Jan. 22, 2014).