Camp Fire Toasts Installer
[IMAGE]FLS-lawsuit-web.jpg[/IMAGE]
In the early morning hours of Dec. 27, 2003, an accidental fire pillaged through a boys summer camp in Naples, Me. The camp was temporarily closed through the winter season with only the building maintenance supervisor residing on the premise. The fire alarm system had failed, propagating the blaze to burn for nearly an hour before the inferno was detected by the building supervisor and only then were the local fire authorities notified. Three buildings were lost to the undetected fire.
The incident resulted in a lawsuit demanding $3 million in damages from the alarm company. In 2007, the boys camp ultimately won the suit with help from renowned industry expert and president of Teaneck, N.J.-based IDS Research and Development Inc., Jeffrey Zwirn. The judgment was based on the premise that had the fire alarm system been properly designed, installed, serviced, maintained and monitored in accordance with the fire code, the alarm stem would have detected the fire in its early stages, significantly minimizing damages.
Throughout this case – which will simply be referred to as summer camp vs. fire alarm company so as to protect the names of the plaintiff and defendant – the prosecution’s alarm expert, Zwirn, took an extensive look inside the installation and maintenance practices surrounding the alarm system, and the installer’s responsibilities to the customer.
Building A Case
In mid-1997, the boys summer camp contacted a fire alarm company to design, install, and maintain a fire alarm system for the campground. The property owner accepted everything offered to him by the alarm company; the cost of the fire alarm system was not a consideration, nor was the system required by code.
The initial sale of the installation was on June 16, 1997, two weeks after the state of Maine adopted the National Fire Protection Association’s 1996 version of NFPA 72. However, after examination from Zwirn, it was revealed that the alarm company had not followed the recently implemented code, and the company’s design and selection of the fire alarm system had not met minimum industry standards.
Even if NFPA 72 had not been adopted at the time of the sale, Zwirn argues that a company that holds itself out to the public as an expert in fire alarm systems is charged with the duty of following industry standards.
Part of the company’s defense was that it did comply with the code; however, further investigation revealed that the system grossly deviated from NFPA 72 and was severely flawed in its design and installation.
Hazards Of Improper Equipment
The camp’s fire alarm system was initially installed with an Ademco 612 tape dialer for communication to the Naples Fire Department (NFD). The dialer was connected to a single telephone line. The serious drawback, however, was that the tape dialer was never designed or listed for a commercial application, and, therefore, was not listed for use with a commercial fire alarm system.
“The problem with the selection of this piece of equipment was that the Ademco tape dialer was never UL-Listed for any purpose, let alone for a commercial fire alarm application,” says Zwirn.
During a routine test, one of the company’s technicians determined the tape dialer was not in compliance with the fire code. When this defect was recognized, the company installed the required item, a UL-Listed dual line digital alarm communicator transmitter (DACT); however, the technician was reckless and connected the DACT to only one phone line, ignoring the code requirement of using two phone lines.
“The protected premise had probably 12 to 16 telephone lines, but without the knowledge, consent or authority of the owner, the alarm company egregiously and recklessly tricked the new system into believing two phone lines were connected,” says Zwirn.
The alarm company had created a dangerous situation lacking redundancy, resulting in a serious fire code violation. An automated test signal was generated every 24 hours to NFD as required by code to verify the successful transmission of the DACT, but because there was only one line, no backup was available if the line became inoperable.
“What we found out is that they never programmed for daily test signal supervision at the Naples Fire Department as they were contracted to do,” says Zwirn. “We also found out that because this particular premise was a seasonal business, when they were not on season, they turned off many of their phone lines.”
Subsequently, the phone line servicing the dialer was turned off inadvertently when the camp was not in use. However, even though the system was trying to send a test signal every day, the signal was not being supervised. When the system stopped communicating, NFD was not able to recognize it as the fire alarm company had failed to program the Naples Fire Department’s central station receiving equipment for indications of at test fail condition. As a result, when the delinquency signal occurred, the remote station operator never received it.
“Had there been notice, the alarm company could have restored the functionality prior to the fire. Our position was that had they complied with the minimal fire code, they would have known when there was an impairment, which is critical in any fire alarm system,” Zwirn says.
Knowing Your Environment
In addition to the reckless communicator connection, the company failed to install equipment in the appropriate environment according to manufacturer’s instructions, violating NFPA 72.
“To further amplify the recklessness and the gross deviation into what the alarm company did and did not do, the control panel in the protected premise at the location drastically exceeded the temperature limitations of the equipment,” says Zwirn.
According to the manufacturer’s specifications, the environmental limitations for the control panel were 32º F to 120º F. If the installer exceeds these limitations, the overall functionality, operation and reliability of the equipment can be affected. The unit can become nonfunctional as the logic board will not operate reliably, and it may become impaired and shut down.
The temperature in the room with the control panel was well below the specified environment guidelines since it was located in an unheated building during winter in Maine. The alarm company, in defense, attested to strapping a lamp to the control panel in an attempt to heat the location. This “junk science,” as referred to by Zwirn, did not help the performance of the control panel. When the fire occurred, the building supervisor, who at the time was living on site, testified to never hearing the alarm sound, suggesting the multitude of fire code violations was consistent with the failures of the system.
Learn From Others’ Mistakes
Even though the fire alarm company had a contract, its lack of judgment in installing the system with improper equipment and in the improper environment ultimately led to its loss in the lawsuit.
“I think it was a corporate mentality of recklessness. They thought they had a contract that would protect them,” says Zwirn. “I believe it has an effect on alarm contractors in that if you violate the fire code, you cannot expect to get the same protections under a contract as a contractor who does not violate the fire code.”
Staying up to date on industry standards should be held in high regard by all fire alarm installers, especially when the customer’s safety and property is at risk.
“Whether an inspector checks your work or not, you’re still the contractor on record and you still have to comply with what the code is,” Zwirn says. “Contractors need to recognize the criticality th
at the code is a minimum requirement, not a maximum requirement. If we can’t get alarm contractors to comply with the minimum requirements of the state where they are doing business, then we are going to see more and more of these cases.”
Having properly trained and supervised employees is as equally important as knowing and practicing the code correctly. According to NFPA 72, 1996 Edition, fire alarm systems should be designed and developed by persons experienced in the proper design, application, installation and testing of fire alarm systems. Unfortunately in this case, the fire alarm company’s technicians were not able to correctly recognize and fix the defects in the summer camp’s fire alarm system.
“We need to make sure alarm contractors do not design and install a system they are not fully trained in, or supervised their people on. They should not get involved in this side of the business if they are not experts on the system,” Zwirn says.
To become an expert in the fire alarm industry, Zwirn encourages installers to acquire the prerequisite education, skill, knowledge, training and experience to apply the proper science to the job.
Zwirn suggests that corporate culture tends to overemphasize the sale and recurring monthly revenue (RMR), and often blames the customer instead of taking responsibility for system failures.
“When you look at the totality of all these things, alarm companies need to recognize that what we do is extremely significant and they have to distinguish themselves when they do their work,” he says. “It’s sad because people are truly relying on us to do the right thing, and [this mentality] hurts the industry.”
It is the fire alarm company’s duty to make sure the system is ready to function reliably the first time, every time. And in the words of Zwirn, it’s not about winning or losing the case. It’s about getting to the truth.
If you enjoyed this article and want to receive more valuable industry content like this, click here to sign up for our FREE digital newsletters!
Related Content
Security Is Our Business, Too
For professionals who recommend, buy and install all types of electronic security equipment, a free subscription to Commercial Integrator + Security Sales & Integration is like having a consultant on call. You’ll find an ideal balance of technology and business coverage, with installation tips and techniques for products and updates on how to add to your bottom line.
A FREE subscription to the top resource for security and integration industry will prove to be invaluable.
