Are you a dummy if you install dummy security cameras? Maybe. It depends how your customer is portraying the cameras in terms of their ability to deter crime, and if you have the proper contract language in place to absolve your integration company from potential liability.
According to a blog by renowned alarm legal expert Ken Kirschenbaum of Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum in Garden City, N.Y., there are not many cases involving phony security cameras but there is a decades-old court case ruling on the books that tested the liability of dummy security cameras. The case was filed against the Antiques Mall at Quechee Gorge Village in Quechee, Vt., by one of the display booths in the mall. The 450-booth mall had allegedly represented its security system as “state of the art,” with an intrusion system, infrared sensors and cameras covering every booth at all times.
Of course, you can guess what happened. The mall was broken in to and the alarm was triggered. The security company notified law enforcement, but by the time they had arrived the thieves had gotten away with more than $31,000 in jewelry from a vendor’s booth. It turned out that many of the cameras were not operating, others were phony dummy cameras, and the ones that were operational were black and white only and recording only during business hours, according to the details revealed in a lawsuit filed in the Appellate Court in Vermont.
"Keep in mind that dummy cameras can create expectation of security that’s not real, and therefore potential lawsuits."
-- Ken Kirschenbaum
The images were recorded onto a VCR and were retained for seven days, but “not routinely reviewed,” according to the plaintiffs. There were an additional 16 surveillance cameras in service that did not record the images but were monitored “live” via a rotating quad display monitor the checkout counter. The plaintiffs sued the mall owners, claiming "alleged negligent misrepresentation and a violation of the Consumer Fraud Act." The court agreed with that accusation and the plaintiffs prevailed.
Fortunately, the security integration company was not sued, but according to Kirschenbaum the case is a lesson for integrators to make sure they have a solid exculpatory clause in their installation contracts, especially if they are working in commercial environments where their clients are making claims about the safety of their facility, whether it is a restaurant, gym, retail store other entity that has public access for customers.
“Keep in mind that dummy cameras can create expectation of security that’s not real, and therefore potential lawsuits, which the party offering indemnity may or may not be prepared to really indemnify you for defense and damages,” says Kirschenbaum.
According to Investopedia, an exculpatory clause is a contract provision that relieves one party of liability if damages are caused during the execution of the contract. An exculpatory clause runs the risk of being rendered invalid if there is an intent to deceive or commit fraud under the terms and conditions of the policy.
In this case, the court ruled that the mall had intentionally deceived its jewelry vendor by characterizing the security system as comprehensive and creating a false sense of security with the dummy cameras.
For integrators, the exculpatory clause in your contract protects you from the liability based on whatever characterizations the client, which in this case is the mall, might make.
