A burglary at the home of a Hollywood power couple has resulted in a lawsuit that could help decide whether a burglar alarm company has a fiduciary duty not to abuse the trust of its customers.

Friedkin & Lansing

William Friedkin, the director of such movies as “The Exorcist” and “The French Connection,” and former Paramount Pictures chief Sherry Lansing were victims of a December 2006 burglary that is believed to be one of a string of robberies in the ultra-exclusive Bel-Air neighborhood of Los Angeles tied to the same sophisticated team of criminals.

The couple had recently purchased a premium alarm system from ADT Security Services after a salesman allegedly promised them that it “makes your home 3 times less likely to be burglarized” and that, in the event of an alarm signal, a patrol officer would respond “within minutes.”

But in an unusual suit filed in August, Friedkin and Lansing allege the company's service is so deficient that burglars have “intentionally targeted ADT homes in the Bel-Air area” and the ADT sign outside their home “literally caused [them] to become unwitting targets for home invasion.”

Other burglary victims have sued security companies for fraudulent misrepresentation and negligence. Friedkin and Lansing have taken a step further by also accusing ADT of breaching a fiduciary duty that arose because

Plaintiffs entrusted in defendants their residence, personal security and their most treasured and personal possessions. Indeed, plaintiffs put their lives in defendants' hands.

A fiduciary duty traditionally exists, for example, between a trustee and a beneficiary or partners in a business. According to a demurrer filed by ADT, however, “the relationship between an alarm company or a security company and its customers has never been defined in California's decisional authority as being fiduciary in nature.”

Friedkin and Lansing's trust in ADT is “not the test for the existence of a fiduciary duty,” the company argues. Rather, there must be an “unequal relationship” between the parties, with “overmastering influence” on one side or “vulnerability” on the other.

“Plaintiffs have not alleged, and are unable to allege, facts establishing that their home security contract with ADT gives rise to a fiduciary duty,” the demurrer, which is set for a hearing Nov. 5, concludes.

ADT did not demur to the fraud and negligence claims, but California case law suggests those claims could face major evidentiary problems.

In Helm v. K.O.G. Alarm Co., 4 Cal.App.4th 194 (1992), an appeals court found mobilehome residents had failed “to establish a causal nexus between their theft/arson losses and the failure of the burglar alarm system to operate as represented.” Firemans Fund Insurance v. Morse Signal Devices, 151 Cal.App.3d 681 (1984), held that a failure to alert police after receiving an alarm signal did not amount to gross negligence.

Friedkin and Lansing allege an ADT patrol officer took more than an hour and 45 minutes to respond to the alarm at their home and then, after finding no signs of a break-in, did not inform them or the police of the alarm activation.

By Matthew Heller
10/17/07