Comcast’s sweeping disclaimers of responsibility for failures or confusion over its home security system made it next to impossible for a Washington state judge to find the cable company or its contractor liable for an alleged system failure that allowed two men to break into a Kirkland home undetected and torture the family’s teenage son.

Washington Superior Court Judge William Downing sympathized with the Rawat family over the intuitiveness of XFINITY’s Home Security system that required the family to arm it by selecting “away” mode before going to sleep, in turn activating motion detectors that would have alerted the family to the break-in.

“In the world of made-up words like XFINITY and meaningless slogans like ‘The Future of Awesome,’ this is not startling,” the judge said. “It is Microsoft that has trained us to shut down our computers by going to the ‘Start’ menu. More to the point, it is equally counterintuitive to believe that an indoor motion detector would be armed when a system was being set for a family and pets intending to stay inside the house.”

Comcast’s security contract lets the company walk away from responsibility for virtually everything.

Despite that, the Rawat family attorney had a high hurdle to overcome – Comcast’s contract with its customers that disavowed responsibility for almost any and all failures of the system and goes as far as to require victims to protect Comcast if a matter reaches the courts.

“Comcast complied with the terms of its written contract and did not breach any of its contractual duties,” the judge said. “No claims can lie for breaches of any expressed or implied warranties that were effectively disclaimed in the written contract.”

The judge added the plaintiffs may have exposed imperfections in Comcast’s installer training, the information conveyed on its lighted home security system control panels, and the nomenclature used to designate different system modes. But none of those acts overcame Comcast’s contractual disclaimers and failed to reach the legal definition of negligence.

Comcast’s attorneys argued the undetected break-in was the fault of the Rawat family because they failed to use the XFINITY Home Security system properly. To activate protection, the family had to arm the system in “away” mode before going to sleep, despite the fact the system’s motion detectors could trigger a false alarm if anyone moved inside of the home.

Downing

Ultimately, the judge found Comcast’s argument compelling.

“The malicious attack by the two criminals was motivated by pure evil and warrants every last second of punishment that they receive,” the Comcast attorney said. “However, what happened to Deep Rawat is not the result of anything that Comcast or Pioneer [the contractor] did or did not do.”

In short, the family should hold Blessing Gainey and Vincent Sisounong, who pled guilty to the attack last year, responsible, not Comcast or its contractor.

While acknowledging the severity of the plaintiffs’ son’s injuries and the emotional impact of the crime, the judge could not find Comcast responsible under the terms of the contract the family willingly signed.

But the case may offer some insight for other Comcast customers who either have or are evaluating an XFINITY Home Security system. A careful review of the contract Comcast makes customers sign may prove important as a customer considers their options for home security and personal protection.

Vincent Sisounong and Blessing Gainey were charged with attempted murder.

A Kirkland, Wash. family nearly lost their son in a brutal home invasion that Comcast’s home security system failed to deter and now the family is taking the cable company to court.

Leena Rawat and her family depended on Comcast’s home security system to keep their home intruder-proof, and that is precisely what the company and its contractor, Pioneer Cable, promised.

But the night two teenage neighbors went looking for blood, they had no trouble bypassing Comcast’s unarmed basement sensor and entering the family’s home.

Within minutes, the two men grabbed 18-year old Deep and began torturing him while his family slept.

“They were going to play a game with him tonight – and the game would be that he would be fighting for his life,” Rawat told KING-TV in Seattle. “He was full of blood from head to toe, with gashes. He was in the worst situation possible that a mother wants to see her child in.”

The intruders’ impromptu mission: to chop off one of Deep’s arms and legs with various cutting tools while robbing the family home.

Police say Vincent Sisounong and Blessing Gainey began the attack in Deep’s bedroom, then dragged him to the basement, where Sisounong instructed Gainey to hack at Rawat’s leg down to the bone, and then stabbed Rawat himself. Court documents said Sisounong told detectives that he wanted the victim to “fight for his life,” and when asked if the experience was enjoyable, he said, “yeah.”

Rawat eventually managed to break free, prompting Gainey to leave the scene. But Sisounong chased after Rawat as he ran to the bathroom, further slashing him with a knife. Rawat mustered enough strength to punch the intruder in the face and escape, but not before the men stole keys, electronics, and money before walking out the door.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KIRO Seattle Police Suspects tried to kill for pleasure and greed 11-4-13.flv[/flv]

KIRO-TV in Seattle reported on the home invasion back in early November 2013 and learned horrified neighbors were arming themselves to protect against another random attack. (2:27)

During the incident, the only alert that something might be wrong came from the family’s car alarm that accidentally went off during a struggle for the keys. At no time did Comcast’s alarm system activate or signal police an intrusion was underway. Authorities were summoned only after Deep arrived, bleeding and badly injured, on a neighbor’s doorstep.

Vincent Sisounong, 21, and Blessing Gainey, 19, were located by authorities after matching fingerprints were found inside the Rawat home and both were charged with first-degree attempted murder and first-degree burglary.

When interviewed by police, Sisounong said he “really wanted” to kill the teenager, court documents said, noting that neither man knew the Rawat family.

“I just say God was there that night,” said an incensed Leena. “God, but not Comcast security. It’s been very tough. It was not a one night thing. It’s changed our life.”

That night and every night, the one thing Comcast’s security system manages to protect more than anything else is the cable company itself.

The traumatized family quickly learned Comcast was disavowing any and all responsibility for the failure of their alarm system, and Comcast’s contracts include clauses that require customers to waive all liability, even if Comcast is later found negligent. In fact, customers who sign Comcast’s contract must also side with the cable company and against their own insurance company during any claims process.

Comcast’s security contract lets the company walk away from responsibility for almost everything.

The first duty of every Comcast home security customer is to protect Comcast, as made clear in particularly bold, all-capital letter print:

YOUR DUTY TO PROTECT/INDEMNIFY THE COMPANY APPLIES EVEN IN THE CASE OF THE COMPANY’S OWN NEGLIGENCE.

“If their argument is to be accepted, they could put in empty black boxes throughout the house and say, ‘That’s your system.’ And then something goes wrong, and they say, ‘We never promised you it would work,'” said Ken Friedman, attorney.

Comcast’s response:

“We want to take this opportunity to extend our sympathies to the Rawat family. However, after a review of our records, we are confident that our home security system functioned properly.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KING Seattle Comcast Sued Over Home Security System Failures 10-1-14.flv[/flv]

KING-TV in Seattle talked with Leena Rawat about how Comcast let her and her family down on the worst night of their lives. (2:29)

This monopole cell tower antenna just showed up one day in the backyard of this Kirkland, PQ resident.

Kirkland, Que. residents are encouraged by news Rogers Communications has begun to relent on installing nearly-15 meter-high monopole cell towers in residential neighborhoods after the company agreed to relocate a similar antenna in Dorval.

Neighbors in both communities are upset Rogers has located new antennas that tower over homes and trees in residential areas, often in the backyards of residents who permit their presence in return for a monthly check.

The Dorval tower was particularly obtrusive to residents, installed in a city right-of-way adjacent to Morris Avenue. Residents there complained about possible health effects of the nearby tower, and called it an eyesore.

Rogers has now agreed to relocate the antenna to the nearby Sarto Desnoyers Community Centre at company expense.

When the new towers suddenly appear, nearby neighbors feel sandbagged. One Kirkland resident told The Gazette the towers are monstrosities. But Rogers is within the law if it keeps the towers below the 15 meter mark, and the company does not require advance zoning or government approval.

Rogers defends the towers, claiming the unprecedented demand for cellular service requires the company to get creative in finding new places to fill in coverage gaps. Unfortunately, with a shrinking number of suitable commercial or industrial locations, the company has been forced to consider residential installations.

Stop the Cap! has been following the Kirkland tower saga for several weeks. The Gazette reports no immediate progress has been made to get Rogers to relocate that specific antenna, but the company’s responsiveness in Dorval gives local officials and residents optimism an agreement can be reached in Kirkland as well.

This monopole cell tower antenna just showed up one day in the backyard of this Kirkland, PQ resident.

Rogers Communications installed a 49-foot monopole cellular antenna in the backyard of a Kirkland, Que. resident earlier this year, but the only signals being transmitted are discussions over its fate at town hall.

Residents were furious when a neighbor leased out a portion of a residential backyard to Rogers, who claims the small cube antenna mounted on the pole will improve cell reception in the immediate area. Ever since Stop the Cap! first covered this story earlier this year, local officials have been flummoxed about what they can do about the antenna, which is currently non-operational.

“For now (there is) no resolution, but talks are progressing,” Kirkland’s director general Joe Sanalitro told The West Island Gazette. “We are demanding it come down.”

Rogers and Kirkland officials have been meeting about the antenna, which has generated considerable interest and complaints over whether the company used a zoning loophole to sneak the antenna into the neighborhood.

If allowed to stand, residents fear Rogers and other cell companies could offer cash incentives to other homeowners to erect similar towers, increasing visual pollution.

Industry Canada rules state towers less than 15 meters are excluded from municipal notification rules and do not require permits to install.  Rogers was evidently aware of this rule — its Kirkland antenna tops out at 14.5 meters, just shy of the height limit.

This nearly 15 meter monopole cell tower antenna just showed up one day in the backyard of this Kirkland, PQ resident, who is presumably being compensated up to $200 a month as Rogers' newest cell tower landlord.

Rogers Communications has found a solution to difficult zoning laws and cell tower controversy — find a homeowner willing to accept around $200 a month to host a (relatively) short cell tower antenna in their backyard, skirting the usual dragged-out cell tower siting consultations most local communities have enacted to control visual pollution.

A wealthy neighborhood in the community of Kirkland, a city of 20,000 near Montreal, discovered Rogers’ ingenuity for themselves when a just-under-50-foot monopole antenna suddenly appeared in the backyard of a home on Acres Street.

The neighbors are outraged. But Rogers says everything they did erecting the tower with no prior notice was done by the book.

That book, in the form of Industry Canada regulations, says Rogers doesn’t need to endure lengthy zoning hearings or a town-wide consultation process.  Rogers agrees, stating they can erect antennas of less than 15 meters at their pleasure — no consultation required.

Rogers spokesperson Stephanie Jerrold said Industry Canada regulations are clear: “The protocol says that if it’s a tower that measures under 15 meters, no public consultation is needed,” she said.

That may be true, but the loophole did nothing to appease dozens of nearby residents living in homes valued at $400,000 from raising a ruckus with local officials.  A petition has been submitted to city hall demanding Rogers remove the antenna.  Residents expressed concerns about their health and property values with a cell tower in their midst.

Rogers foreshadowed their intent last fall when they mailed letters to homeowners looking for someone to host the new antenna, offering around $200 a month to any takers. Evidently there was one — the resident at 75 Acres St.

City officials are pondering what to do about the new tower. They did not approve a work permit for its placement, which may provide leverage against Rogers, but no one knows for sure.

Thus far, Industry Canada wants to remain more than 15 meters away from the debate.  A spokesman for the agency, Antoine Quellon, told the West Island Gazette:

“The company must consult with the local community as required and address relevant concerns. It must also satisfy Industry Canada’s general and technical requirements, including Health Canada’s Safety Code 6, aeronautical safety, interference protection and environmental requirements. Under rare circumstances where an agreeable solution for a site is not possible, Industry Canada may need to make a determination based on the facts presented.”

[flv width=”400″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC Montreal Backyard cell tower in Kirkland worries neighbours 4-11-12.flv[/flv]

CBC in Montreal covered the Kirkland controversy and talked with the neighbors about the new 50 foot pole owned by Rogers Communications.  (2 minutes)