Free Statement of Material Facts - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-01015-DJS

Document 25

Filed 09/21/2004

Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNCTICUT

GLENS FALLS INSURCE COMPANY:
a/s/o HAROLD and LAURN HEINZ Plaintiff
against

CIVIL ACTION NO. 303 CV 1015 (DJS)

COMMAND FORCE SECURTY
SYSTEMS, INC.

SEPTEMBER 21, 2004

Defendant

LOCAL RULE 56(a)2 STATEMENT

The plaintiff, Glens Falls Insurance Company, pursuant to Rule 56(a)2 of the

Local Civil Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut,
submits this statement in support of its obj ection to the defendant's motion for summary
judgment.
1.

Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted.
Denied solely to the extent that the testimony of

2.
3.

4.
5.

Harold Heniz was that the

premises was built in 1966 or 1967. (Deposition testimony of

Harold Heinz, attached as
motion for summary judgment).

exhibit K to the defendant's memorandum in support of

6.

Admitted in part and denied in part. Admitted that Lauren Heinz signed a

contract with the defendant for the installation of a centrally monitored security and fire

detection system and this contract set forth what was installed by the defendant. Denied

to the extent that the word "authorizing" implies that Lauren or Harold Heinz had any

expertise in the design of fire detection systems, in the factors that are relevant to the

Case 3:03-cv-01015-DJS

Document 25

Filed 09/21/2004

Page 2 of 7

adequate and reasonable design of fire detection systems or that the defendant ever

advised Lauren and Harold Heinz that the fire detection system it installed was
inadequate.
7.
8.

Admitted.

Denied. Harold Heinz was uncertain as to when the remodeling work,

including the new bedrooms, was completed. (Deposition testimony of Harold Heinz,

attached as exhibit K to the defendant's memorandum in support of motion for summary
judgment).
9.
Denied in that the testimony was uncertain as to when the renovations

were complete. (Deposition testimony of Harold Heinz, attached as exhibit K to the
defendant's memorandum in support of

motion for summary judgment).

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

Admitted. Admitted.

Admitted
Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted.

Admitted and denied. The plaintiff admits this paragraph, but denies that

it is a complete statement as to the analysis done by T. 1. Klem and Associates. More
specifically, the plaintiff denies that the first report prepared by T. 1. Klem and

Case 3:03-cv-01015-DJS

Document 25

Filed 09/21/2004

Page 3 of 7

Associates is a complete analysis of the adequacy and effectiveness of the fire detection
system installed by the defendant at the Heinz residence. (Exhibits I and J).
20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted.

Admitted and denied. The plaintiff admits this paragraph, but denies that

it is a complete statement as to the analysis done by T. 1. Klem and Associates. More
specifically, the plaintiff denies that the first report prepared by T. 1. Klem and
Associates is a complete analysis of the adequacy and effectiveness of the fire detection
system installed by the defendant at the Heinz residence. (Exhibits I and J)
25. 26.

Admitted.

Admitted and denied.

Plaintiff admits that the phrase quoted in this

paragraph is in the first report prepared by T. 1. Klem but denies that it is a complete
statement as to the analysis done by T. 1. Klem and Associates. More specifically, the
plaintiff denies that the first report prepared by T. 1. Klem and Associates is a complete

analysis of the adequacy and effectiveness of the fire detection system installed by the
defendant at the Heinz residence. (Exhibits I and J)
27.

Admitted and denied.

Plaintiff admits that the phrase quoted in this

paragraph is in the first report prepared by T. 1. Klem but denies that it is a complete
statement as to the analysis done by T. 1. Klem and Associates. More specifically, the
plaintiff denies that the first report prepared by T. 1. Klem and Associates is a complete

Case 3:03-cv-01015-DJS

Document 25

Filed 09/21/2004

Page 4 of 7

analysis of the adequacy and effectiveness of the fire detection system installed by the
defendant at the Heinz residence. (Exhibits I and J)
28.

Admitted and denied. The plaintiff admits this paragraph, but denies that

it is a complete statement as to the analysis done by T. 1. Klem and Associates. More
specifically, the plaintiff denies that the first report prepared by T. 1. Klem and
Associates is a complete analysis of the adequacy and effectiveness of the fire detection
system installed by the defendant at the Heinz residence. (Exhibits I and J)
29.
30. 31.

Admitted. Admitted.

Denied only to the assertion that it was Attorney Joseph E. Mascaro who

requested a written report setting forth the finding and opinions ofMr. Klem.
32. 33. 34. 35. 36.

Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted.

Denied to the extent that it is unclear whether this statement applies to

dwellings where renovations or alterations have taken place. (Exhibits I and J)
37. 38. 39.

Admitted. Admitted.

Denied to the extent that it alleges he disagrees with his report. Mr. Klem

clarified this particular phrase at his deposition; he did not disagree with his entire report.
40. 41.

Admitted. Admitted.

Case 3:03-cv-01015-DJS

Document 25

Filed 09/21/2004

Page 5 of 7

DISPUTED ISSUES OF MATERIL FACT
The plaintiff submits that the following issues of material fact are in dispute.
1.

Whether the defendant was negligent because the centrally monitored fire

detection system installed by it was inadequate given the design of the Heinz home.
A.

Because of the design of the Heinz home - referred to as a "post-

and-beam" design - smoke from a fire would collect in the spaces created by the beams

thereby increasing the time that it would take for smoke to reach the sole centrally
monitored smoke detector installed by the defendant in the lower level of the Heinz
home. (Reports of T. 1. Klem and Associates attached as exhibits G and H to defendant's

memorandum of law in support of motion for summary judgment; photographs of the
Heinz home showing the "post-and-beam design," exhibit 9 to plaintiffs memorandum;
Exhibits I, J, M and N)
B.

Defendant's own expert testified that the design of the Heinz home

result in more time passing before the smoke from the fire was detected by the centrally
monitored detector. (Deposition of John Allen, attached to defendant's memorandum as
exhibit N)

c.

Defendant's own expert testified that had a centrally monitored

smoke detector been placed in the lower level bedroom, the room of fire origin, then the
fire would have been detected sooner. (Deposition of John Allen, attached to defendant's
memorandum as exhibit N)
2.

Whether the defendant was negligent because if failed to even consider

various relevant and important facts when designing and installing the fire detection
system.

Case 3:03-cv-01015-DJS

Document 25

Filed 09/21/2004

Page 6 of 7

a.

Mathew Matza of the defendant testified that he did not consider

the type of fire department -volunteer or professional, distance from the Heinz residence,
type of equipment etc. - maintained by the Town of

Wilton, Connecticut when designing

the fire detection system at the Heinz home. (Exhibit M).
b.

defendant knew that the centrally monitored system was requested

by the homeowner's insurance carrier; yet defendant did not install system adequate to
protect the property. (Exhibits i. 1. K and M).
3.

Whether the central monitoring station, chosen by the defendant, was

failed to comply with the NFP A in the amount of time it took to contact the fire
department. (Exhibit J).
4.

Whether the defendant should have installed a centrally monitored

detector in the room of fire origin - a bedroom - because renovations were taking place

and pursuant to the NFP A, a detector was required in each bedroom. Every other
detector installed by the defendant was centrally monitored and had it decided to install a

detector in the lower level bedroom, it would have been centrally monitored as well.
(Exhibits I and J).
THE PLAITIFF,

GLENS FALLS INSURCE COMPANY a/s/o HAROLD and LAURN HEINZ

By Isl Joseph E. Mascaro
Joseph E. Mascaro, Esq. - CT 12736 Morrison Mahoney LLP
One Constitution Plaza, ioth Floor

Hartford, CT 06103 (860) 616-4441 (860) 541-4878
j mascaro(£morrisonmahoney. com

Case 3:03-cv-01015-DJS

Document 25

Filed 09/21/2004

Page 7 of 7

CERTIFICA TE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed to the following parties of record postage prepaid this 21 8t day of September, 2004, as follows:
Attorney Michael Mezzacappa Kaufman, Borgeest & Ryan, LLP 200 Summit Lake Drive Valhalla, NY 10595

Isl Joseph E. Mascaro Joseph E. Mascaro