PAY FIRST CITIZENS $7M

[dougla_boy]

State-owned First Citizens Bank has won an unprecedented lawsuit in the High Court against Sentinel Security Services Ltd for $7 million, the money stolen from an un-armoured van in a robbery in which a security guard was killed in two years ago.

On November 27, 2013, gunmen shot dead Sentinel Security guard, Bert Clarke, when they ambushed a Sentinel van en route along the Churchill Roosevelt Highway to Piarco International Airport for the millions in cash to be flown to Tobago. The gunmen have never been captured, and the money has never been found.

And now, a few months shy of the anniversary of the deadly heist, Justice Carol Gobin’s judgment in favour of First Citizens and against Sentinel has set a precedent in which pleading that money entrusted to security guards has been stolen in a robbery is not a defence as a matter of strict non-liability.

Therefore, Gobin has ordered Sentinel to compensate First Citizens to the sum of $7.193 million plus the bank’s legal costs.

It is the first time a security firm has been held to be responsible and ordered to pay back money in the charge of its security officers which was stolen in a robbery.

The robbery occurred at about 4 am on November 27, 2013, when a Sentinel van with two guards, was transporting an estimated $7.193 million in Trinidad and Tobago currency and US$30,000. A SUV slammed into the Sentinel van, in the vicinity of Johnson’s & Johnson’s, bringing the van to a stop. Gunmen got out of the SUV and began firing at the Sentinel van in which Clarke, 59, an estate superintendent, was shot dead. The second guard who was driving ran across the highway, surviving the attack unhurt, but the gunmen made off with the loot.

Since then, First Citizens initiated action to recover the stolen money from Sentinel, writing the company and requesting what it described as requisition of the $7.193 million which belonged to the bank.

In a lawsuit, the bank claimed Sentinel guards collected $7,193,995 from its cash management centre in Chaguanas to be taken to the airport to be flown to Tobago, then for delivery to its branches.

In documents filed in San Fernando High Court, senior civil attorney Prakash Deonarine, representing First Citizens, contended the bank’s money was packaged in sealed green canvas bags.

Deonarine submitted that the agreement between the bank and Sentinel was that in the event of a loss of shipment, or carriage of goods by the security firm, liability shall be limited to an amount not exceeding $10 million. And, the agreement stated the security company shall insure the shipment with a reputable insurer to cover liability.

Deonarine further contended Sentinel shall be held liable for the performance of its employees or agents, in the due execution of its obligations under the contract.

First Citizens added that the security company has been transporting money for its branches for 20 years.

In its’ defence, Sentinel acknowledged it was transporting the money but argued that there was a robbery in transit to Piarco.

And, because of that robbery in which one of its officers, Clarke, was killed, the security company could not be deemed to have deprived the bank of possession of the $7.193 million.

Gobin stated that upon reading First Citizens’ lawsuit claim, and its notice of application, and upon hearing Deonarine’s legal submission, she made the order. Deonarine’s application was filed to strike out Sentinel’s defence that a robbery occurred, and on that basis, the security company did not deprive the bank of the money.

However, the judge ordered that there be judgment for First Citizens against Sentinel for $7,193,995, plus interest in the sum of $487,093.75 up to October 2014.

The judge stated that interest is accruing daily at a rate of $1,498.75.

Sentinel was also ordered by the judge to pay the bank’s legal cost of $156,501.96.

http://www.newsday.co.tt/news/0,215441.html

[pete]

Ouch.

[STORM1234]

delete

[eliteauto]

Sentinel was up for sale recently, wonder if they will actually pay or be wound up

[Slartibartfast]

Even though I don't care about the bank, I admit it makes sense. Protecting the money while in transit it literally what they get paid to do. If they can't protect the money from being stolen then why should they be employed to move the cash.

What about compensation for the guard that died during the robbery though. What is his family getting?

[Dizzy28]

Money transports aren't insured though?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Why wasn't it being transported in an armored vehicle first to begin with?

[Country_Bookie]

Sentinel will probably fold operations to avoid paying this.

And by fold I mean create a new security company and sell Sentinel's existing assets to the new company at nominal prices and rehire the same staff.

[crazybalhead]

Dizzy, if you read it over you will see that the banks arrangement with Sentinel, is that they (sentinel) have a reputable insurance policy for the cargo.

So it should have been insured.

[racedriverpro]

^^If true, who will pay?

Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk

[teems1]

Why is a judge even needed for this.

That's the whole point of these security companies and why they are paid so well. They're supposed to be insured up the wazoo also.

[crazybalhead]

^^If true, who will pay?

Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk

I dunno meng. IF they weren't insured, then straight out of the P&L.

I am sure the insurance company would gladly pay this amount, without any repercussions whatsoever. [/sarcasm] IF they were insured.

[redmanjp]

the insurance company didn't have a problem with the van not being armoured?

[LalChun]

They probably breached the insurance company guidelines (not armored) thats why they are now liable?

[cinco]

the insurance company didn't have a problem with the van not being armoured?

Lol as if sentinel was even insured

[Redman]

Open secret that Sentinel vans mostly unarmoured
Older officers and even older fire arms.

Sadly the officers pay with their life....insurance covers the tab...life goes on.

[W2J]

Sentinel will probably fold operations to avoid paying this.

And by fold I mean create a new security company and sell Sentinel's existing assets to the new company at nominal prices and rehire the same staff.

in a Limited Liability Company, the directors personal assets are held accountable if the the company cannot pay.

[NR8]

^ That's unlimited liability.

[88sins]

Sentinel will probably fold operations to avoid paying this.

And by fold I mean create a new security company and sell Sentinel's existing assets to the new company at nominal prices and rehire the same staff.

this is highly unethical & extremely illegal

in a Limited Liability Company, the directors personal assets are held accountable if the the company cannot pay.

this statement is so wrong on so many levels it isn't even funny.


But I must say the judgment in this case is actually quite good. Quite commonly these local security firms insert a disclaimer in their contracts that absolves them and/or their officers of all liability in the event of damages to or the loss of the clients property. In plain terms, they are saying that they will secure the client's property but if it gets stolen or damaged, even by their own officers, they are not responsible & it's the clients loss. That is real high class horse crap. With such a clause in the contract, the only reason to hire them in the first place is to prove to insurers that all possible steps were taken by the owner to prevent the loss.

[*$kїđž!™]

Sentinel will probably fold operations to avoid paying this.

And by fold I mean create a new security company and sell Sentinel's existing assets to the new company at nominal prices and rehire the same staff.

in a Limited Liability Company, the directors personal assets are held accountable if the the company cannot pay.

NO way...Limited Liability means that they can only sieze the assets of the business....not personal assets.......hence its a way to protect the owner/directors....

So...Sentinel gonna file for bankruptcy to get out of this.....company buss?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Sentinel will probably fold operations to avoid paying this.

And by fold I mean create a new security company and sell Sentinel's existing assets to the new company at nominal prices and rehire the same staff.

in a Limited Liability Company, the directors personal assets are held accountable if the the company cannot pay.

eh?

[TheBoostLord]

Limited liability in T&T's law, limit a company's liability from its shareholders.
This means that shareholders are separate from the company and their personal assets cannot be claimed, should the company experience loss or bankruptcy etc. The shareholders liability is limited to the shares they invested. So if you invested $100,000 in shares u can lose that but not your car. But if u purchased the car under the company u can lose it. If you used your personal property as collateral for bank loan in a company, you can lose that property, since that was your investment.

[W2J]

Sentinel will probably fold operations to avoid paying this.

And by fold I mean create a new security company and sell Sentinel's existing assets to the new company at nominal prices and rehire the same staff.

in a Limited Liability Company, the directors personal assets are held accountable if the the company cannot pay.

eh?

I don't know what happen there

suppose to say "are NOT held"

[Ted_v2]

they coulda pay the money and move on long time now.

[88sins]

Limited liability in T&T's law, limit a company's liability from its shareholders.

correct

But if u purchased the car under the company u can lose it. If you used your personal property as collateral for bank loan in a company, you can lose that property, since that was your investment.

kinda corect, but not entirely so cut & dried
If the company purchased the car & the shareholder is using it for their personal convenience but it's still registered to the company, then yes the shareholder can lose the car. If company bought the car then the shareholder bought it from the company, then the car is safe & can't be touched.

If you directly leveraged your house as collateral to finance the business, then the house is not part of the company assets, but the liquid cash provided from the transaction is. The house is actually then legally considered a creditor to the company & the company owes the house what was invested. Essentially the house becomes a shareholder in the entity until the entire amount is repaid & & the lien on the house by the bank is relieved. In a situation where the company collapses & defaults on the loan, then the house that was used as collateral becomes the sole property of the bank.

[TheBoostLord]

Well yeah not as cut as i put it but that was just to simplify it. It can get very complicated as you stated and even more so.

[make meh care]

Sentinel all yuh take allyuh time and pay more money everyday for FCB.

[pugboy]

they go declare bankruptcy

[r3iXmann]

they go declare bankruptcy

Bankruptcy declarations aren't that easy, despite what people might think

[88sins]

That's what a lot of ppl dont know.
Bankruptcy has to be proven. Liabilities and expenses need to far surpass income and assets and quite a few other qualifying criteria.

If it was easy everybody would do it and make a lot of easy money