Okay, about the cameras, IGA not installing them, MetLife's reward, etc. I've mentioned before that I work in insurance, too. I don't have anything to do with commercial insurance but something from a discussion in my adjuster's license training kept nagging at the back of my mind, so I finally researched a bit to refresh what I'd been thinking.
Apparently, there are a number of cases where the courts have ruled that when people see cameras, there is a reasonable expectation of response. Because of this, the presence of security cameras (unless they are connected to CCTV that is monitored live 24/7) can actually INCREASE a company's liability, because the increased expectation of response is false.
This article explains it pretty well: https://www.kirschenbaumesq.com/article/qa-do-camera-increase-owners-liability-exposure
If MetLife had cameras that were functioning perfectly but NOT monitored live, they would have increased their liability for any crimes they failed to stop. Possibly motivation for offering a $50k reward, especially if they are set up to be monitored 24/7 but something interfered that day (guy monitoring fell asleep, whatever).
And likewise this could be behind IGA's decision not to install cameras. Like DexterMorgan has pointed out, installing cameras would cost way less than $50k, but installing them + paying to have them monitored 24/7/365 + liability associated with any failure to monitor them...$50k reward is a bargain.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Apparently, there are a number of cases where the courts have ruled that when people see cameras, there is a reasonable expectation of response. Because of this, the presence of security cameras (unless they are connected to CCTV that is monitored live 24/7) can actually INCREASE a company's liability, because the increased expectation of response is false.
This article explains it pretty well: https://www.kirschenbaumesq.com/article/qa-do-camera-increase-owners-liability-exposure
If MetLife had cameras that were functioning perfectly but NOT monitored live, they would have increased their liability for any crimes they failed to stop. Possibly motivation for offering a $50k reward, especially if they are set up to be monitored 24/7 but something interfered that day (guy monitoring fell asleep, whatever).
And likewise this could be behind IGA's decision not to install cameras. Like DexterMorgan has pointed out, installing cameras would cost way less than $50k, but installing them + paying to have them monitored 24/7/365 + liability associated with any failure to monitor them...$50k reward is a bargain.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk