In the life safety and property protection industry, one recurring question continues to surface: does a tenant need to sign a contract if the property owner has already signed one? A recent Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum article highlights why this issue matters and why alarm, fire, and security professionals should not treat it as a simple formality. The answer often depends on who owns the system, who uses it day-to-day, and who is expected to comply with the contractual obligations tied to monitoring, maintenance, testing, and response.
From a Louisiana perspective, this question carries added importance. Under Louisiana law, contracts are generally enforceable only against the parties who sign them and have legal authority over the obligations being assumed. When a property owner signs an agreement for life safety or property protection systems, that contract typically governs installation, ownership of equipment, and long-term obligations such as monitoring or service fees. However, tenants are often the daily users of these systems. They arm and disarm alarms, interact with access control systems, and may be responsible—by ordinance or lease terms—for false alarms, system misuse, or compliance with local alarm regulations. If a tenant is not a party to the alarm or monitoring contract, enforcing responsibilities such as user training, operational compliance, or cost recovery can become difficult.
This distinction is especially relevant in Louisiana municipalities with alarm ordinances that place specific obligations or penalties on the “alarm user” rather than the property owner alone. False alarm fines, permit requirements, and renewal obligations may fall on the occupant of the premises, even when the owner signed the original contract. Without a tenant’s signature—or a clearly documented agreement tying the tenant to system responsibilities—alarm companies may find themselves caught between owners, tenants, and local authorities. For life safety systems, including fire alarms, similar issues arise when tenants control daily operations but are not contractually bound to testing schedules, impairment notifications, or misuse provisions.
The takeaway for Louisiana life safety and property protection professionals is not that every situation requires the same paperwork, but that clarity is critical. Contracts should clearly define who owns the equipment, who is responsible for system operation, and who bears liability for misuse, false alarms, or noncompliance. In many cases, obtaining a tenant acknowledgment or a separate agreement—especially when the tenant is the primary system user—can reduce disputes and protect all parties involved. As the Kirschenbaum article underscores, strong contracts are not just legal documents; they are risk-management tools that help ensure systems are used properly, laws are followed, and expectations are understood from the start.
LLSSA encourages members to review their contract practices with these considerations in mind and to consult qualified legal counsel when structuring agreements involving both property owners and tenants. Doing so helps safeguard your business, supports compliance with Louisiana law, and ultimately strengthens the life safety and property protection services provided to customers across the state.