ADT Security Services, Inc. v. Swenson
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28947
D. Minnesota2011Background
- Lee contracted with ADT for a residential security system after her ex‑boyfriend’s attack; system installed Aug. 7, 2006, including glass break detectors and TG‑4 cellular backup, with line fault monitoring reportedly disabled by ADT policy; the Agreement contained an integration clause and a broad exculpatory provision capping liability at $500, and Lee’s sister Swenson later administered the estate’s counterclaims.
- ADT’s sales design included model materials and representations about full range of services and line monitoring; actual installation involved deviations (glass detector moved, line fault monitor disabled, TG‑4 wiring not connected) without owner awareness, and Dosse failed to inform Lee/Hawkinson of lack of line monitoring.
- Murder occurred Sept. 22, 2006 after lines were cut and intruder entered; ADT service visit noted system armed but no signals sent since Sept. 13, 2006; counterclaims allege fraud, misrepresentation, warranties, and consumer protection violations; counterclaimants seek declaratory relief, damages, and punitive damages.
- The Trustee and children are bound by or benefit from the Agreement depending on fraud outcome; Court addressed enforceability, integration and various claims; ruling partially favoring ADT on some claims, with issues remaining for trial.
- Procedural posture includes multiple motions for summary judgment and for exclusion of experts; court granted/denied in part, keeping some claims alive depending on enforceability of the Agreement.
- The court separated issues involving comparative fault of police departments, with rulings that Zilge’s actions were discretionary and shielded by official immunity, thus denying some comparative fault claims and reserving others for further briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Agreement void or enforceable due to fraud induced signing? | Estate asserts fraud in inducement to void the Agreement. | ADT contends no fraud; integration clause bars extrinsic claims. | Fraud issues survive; summary judgment denied on fraud in part. |
| Is the exculpatory provision enforceable and scope-limited? | Counterclaimants argue overbreadth/unenforceability for pre‑signing acts and public policy. | Exculpatory clause should limit liability; not void in entirety. | Exculpatory clause is overbroad but not entirely void; limited enforceability recognized. |
| Are Trustee and children bound by the Agreement or its limitations? | Trustee/children should be bound; damages to third parties may exceed contract terms. | Contractual limits apply to Lee; third parties may be limited per case law. | Trustee bound; children’ claims largely depend on contract validity; complex allocation left for trial. |
| Can comparative fault be allocated to police for Lee’s death? | ADt seeks fault apportionment to police; argument based on statutory duties. | Police acts were discretionary; official immunity applies; no clear fault shown. | Compared fault denied for Washington County Sheriff's Office; as to St. Paul Park PD, to be refiled. |
| Do causation and product design justify tort liability if the contract is valid? | Evidence shows system failures proximately causing death; expert testimony not strictly necessary. | If contract valid, liability limited; causation disputed but jury could find. | Causation issues remain; summary judgment denied on proximate cause. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vermes v. American Dist. Tel. Co., 312 Minn. 33, 251 N.W.2d 101 (Minn. 1977) (integration and contract-based duties bound unless fraud proved)
- Leon’s Bakery, Inc. v. Grinnell Corp., 990 F.2d 44 (2d Cir. 1993) (courts uphold exculpatory provisions in alarm contracts)
- In re Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implants Prods. Liab. Litig., 97 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir. 1996) (design defect theories extend to finished product assemblages)