Auto dealerships sue Video Verification Security

By Kyla Asbury | Jul 25, 2014

LOGAN - Two dealerships are suing Video Verification Security Inc. after they claim it made false and fraudulent claims about its security systems that caused them harm and damages.

Ferrell Automotive Group Inc. and Thornhill Group Inc. contracted with Video Verification Security Inc. to install video surveillance equipment at their dealerships and its agents, Don Hager and/or Jeff Hager personally presented at their businesses to make a sales call pitching the video surveillance system, according to two complaints filed July 9 in Logan Circuit Court.

The plaintiffs claim as a result of the sales call, the plaintiffs agreed to purchase the system and entered into contracts with the defendant.

Video Verification Security installed the equipment at their businesses and was to provide on-going video surveillance monitoring of the businesses, according to the suits.

The plaintiffs claim as a result of the agreements they both entered into with VVS, the defendant promised to provide them exterior HDTV intelligent color cameras; exterior 180-degree view intelligent color cameras; exterior zoom license plate cameras; interior HDTV intelligent color cameras; NAS NVR digital recorders; UPS battery backups and POE power; central monitoring center packages; wiring packages and licensed labor; and training packages.

The defendant, through its website, specifically promised that one can watch their dealership from anywhere in the world, which were, at least in part, false and fraudulent, according to the suits.

After having installed the video surveillance system, Ferrell placed a sign in front of one of the video cameras that read "When you see this, call me" and listed the telephone number for the dealership, according to the suit. After weeks of having the sign up, Ferrell says he never received a phone call.

Thornhill claims after it installed the surveillance equipment, it had a break-in at one of its dealerships and requested a copy of the video surveillance from the defendant, which VVS was unable to produce.The plaintiffs claims the defendants' representations and promises were false and/or fraudulent and resulted in the plaintiffs' purchasing the systems and relying on them for security protection.

The defendant knowingly failed to disclose that the system would not record as promised, according to the suits.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages. They are being represented by Robert B. Kuenzel of Kuenzel & Associates PLLC.

The cases have been assigned to Circuit Judges Eric H. O'Briant and Roger L. Perry.

Logan Circuit Court case number: 14-C-186, 14-C-187

More News

The Record Network