Helm

Helm v. K.O.G. Alarm Co.

Good Law
1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 271·4 Cal. App. 4th 194·5 Cal. Rptr. 2d 615·92 Daily Journal DAR 2948·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1929
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 4, 1992E006615California3,315 words

Opinion

Opinion

Timlin, J.

Plaintiffs David and Deborah Helm (the Helms) appeal from the judgment of nonsuit which was entered against them in the instant matter pursuant to section 581c of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing that their cause of action for fraud/intentional misrepresentation against defendant K.O.G. Alarm Company, Inc. (the alarm company) should have been allowed to go to the jury for deliberation and decision. We conclude that the trial court was correct in entering the judgment of nonsuit and, consequently, we affirm the same.

Facts

In 1977, the Helms decided that they needed a burglar alarm system installed in their residential mobilehome to protect the large amount of personalty they had accumulated there. The alarm company was recommended to them for this work by Mrs. Helm’s father. Indeed, it was Mrs. Helm’s father who contacted the alarm company and made arrangements for the installation of a burglar alarm system at the Helms’ mobilehome.

A short time thereafter, the alarm company installed a burglar alarm system in the Helms’ mobilehome. In very basic terms, the system was the sort that sensed unauthorized entry into a guarded area and signalled a remote dispatch office…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.