Legal Brief: When Customers Misuse Systems, Contracts Are Your Best Defense
Key Highlights
- Security providers have strong legal protections — but only if contracts are properly drafted with conspicuous disclaimers and clear limitation-of-liability language.
- Customers have a legal responsibility to understand their own systems. Courts have not been kind to plaintiffs who admit otherwise.
- A burglar alarm near a pool is still a burglar alarm. Misuse for unintended purposes is a liability minefield integrators must contractually guard against.
This article originally appeared in the April 2026 issue of Security Business magazine. Don’t forget to mention Security Business magazine on LinkedIn or our other social handles if you share it.
For more than 20 years, I have represented large security companies in litigation matters across the country. All of my clients provide vast information about their systems – like user manuals, online tutorials, a short "cheat sheet," and other customer education materials. One even published a quick start guide with a header "KNOW YOUR SYSTEM".
Despite these efforts, many customers fail to learn the functionality of their system. Some do not realize what their system can do; others think it can do something that it cannot, and some even use it for a purpose for which it was not intended.
Years ago, we won a case at trial where a subscriber admitted under oath that she learned more about her alarm system under cross-examination from me than she ever knew. She thought that testimony helped her case; however, it did not because it revealed that she did not attempt to understand her system. Yes, security providers have an obligation to educate their customers, but customers have a responsibility as well.
How to Protect Yourself
Some customers want to use their systems for a particular purpose, but that purpose may be for something unintended. Take, for example, a recent case where a customer claims to have used an intrusion system for pool safety. The system was not a pool safety device and was not represented to be a pool safety device. There are actual pool safety devices that the customer could have purchased, but did not.
Here is where contractual protections should apply. Limitation of liability is a common industry provision that stands for the proposition that security providers are not insurers; they do not value their services based on the property or people protected; they are not assuming all the risk of loss; and the operation and use (or misuse) of the system is exclusively in the control of the customer.
To be conspicuous, a disclaimer should be capitalized, bold, or underlined (or all of these) and, thereby, distinguishable from surrounding provisions. If your entire contract is bold, that does not work!
Another key contract protection is a disclaimer of warranties – including of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Residential users may have a variety of reasons why they want a security system. Their providers cannot discern all of their motivations. Some providers include express warranties and performance promises. Others disclaim warranties. Courts scrutinize whether disclaimers are conspicuous and whether they conflict with an intended purpose. Because most states allow product sellers to disclaim express or implied warranties, many alarm contracts disclaim warranties "to the fullest extent permitted by law."
To be conspicuous, a disclaimer should be capitalized, bold, or underlined (or all of these) and, thereby, distinguishable from surrounding provisions. If your entire contract is bold, that does not work!
Claiming a breach of an implied warranty of merchantability requires, among other things, an allegation that the product was used in the intended manner at the time of the injury. In contrast, a breach of an implied warranty for a particular purpose must allege the system was used for a particular purpose that differs from its ordinary use. Security providers should be cautious when interfacing with residential customers who identify a particular purpose outside of ordinary use.
It is not advisable to provide a system for a purpose other than what it was intended. Just because a customer may have a specific need does not mean that the need is apparent or that the system should or could be warranted for that specific need. A burglar alarm installed at a home with a pool does not suddenly make it a pool alarm or create a legal duty to ensure pool safety. Rather, that responsibility rests with the occupants or owners of the home – who are in the best position to install physical and other devices designed to protect against the risks posed by a pool.
Warranty disputes commonly turn on whether the seller knew the buyer's specific needs, whether the buyer relied on the seller's skill, and how contracts allocate risks and remedies. Clear documentation, well-drafted contract terms, and appropriate disclaimers are critical to ensuring that your company does not face a warranty claim.
About the Author
Timothy J. Pastore, Esq.
Timothy J. Pastore Esq., is a Partner in the New York office of Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP (www.mmwr.com), where he is Vice-Chair of the Litigation Department. Before entering private practice, he was an officer and Judge Advocate General (JAG) in the U.S. Air Force and Attorney with the DOJ. [email protected] • (212) 551-7707
Meet Timothy J. Pastore
Timothy J. Pastore, Esq., is the newest columnist to join the Security Business magazine family. He is a Partner in the New York office of Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP (www.mmwr.com), where he is Vice-Chair of the Litigation Department.
Before entering private practice, Mr. Pastore was an officer and Judge Advocate General (JAG) in the U.S. Air Force and a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice. As a JAG, in particular, Mr. Pastore was legal counsel to the Air Force Security Forces and Air Force Office of Special Investigations.
Mr. Pastore has represented some of the largest companies in the security industry, including Protection One, Comcast, Charter, Cox, Altice, Mediacom, IASG, CMS and others. He regularly provides counsel on risk management, contracting, operations, licensing, sales practices, etc. Mr. Pastore also has served as lead counsel in courts throughout the country in dozens of litigation matters involving the security industry.
Among other examples, Mr. Pastore led the successful defense at trial of cable giant Comcast in a home invasion case in Seattle, Washington. The case received significant press attention and was heralded by CVN as a top-ten defense verdict.
Mr. Pastore is a graduate of Bucknell University and Boston College Law School.
Reach him at (212) 551-7707 or by e-mail at [email protected].