ADT Security Services, Inc. v. Van Peterson Fine Jewelers
390 S.W.3d 603
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Van Peterson contracted with ADT to provide commercial alarm services (1999).
- In 2007 an unidentifed man in ADT attire allegedly sold a cellular backup device but did not install it; ADT allegedly disabled the alarm.
- In September 2007 Van Peterson’s store was burgled, wires cut, backup device destroyed, and about $1 million in jewelry stolen.
- Van Peterson sued ADT for negligence, gross negligence, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, fraud, and DT P A claims; ADT asserted the contract’s limitation-of-liability provision and moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted ADT’s summary judgment on Van Peterson’s negligence, gross negligence, breach of contract, and negligent misrepresentation claims; ADT’s other relief and DT P A claims were unresolved at that stage.
- Appellate court affirmatively held ADT’s third issue (the limitation-of-liability provision) supports ADT’s summary judgment on those claims and remanded for further proceedings in all other respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the contract’s limitation-of-liability provision bar Van Peterson’s negligence, gross negligence, breach, and negligent misrepresentation claims? | Van Peterson contends ADT remains liable for negligent conduct despite the limitation. | ADT argues the limitation-of-liability provision defeats these claims. | Yes; the contract limits liability and defeats these claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knotts, 128 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2003) (limits on-liability provisions and related issues cited)
- City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671 ( tex. 1979) (precedent on contract limitations and remedies)
- Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. 1985) (standard for reviewing trial court summary judgments)