On July 21, 2007, plaintiffs’ decedent Matthew Burton, 34, a firefighter employed by Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire District, and a coworker responded to a fire at 149 Michele Drive in San Pablo. Prior to the firefighters being contacted, Security Associates International Inc., the company that monitored alarms sold by Pinnacle Security CA, LLP and Pinnacle Security LLC, received an automated smoke alarm signal from 149 Michele Drive at 1:34 a.m. on July 21, 2007. Upon receipt of that alarm, Security Associates’ customer service representative, Kendra McLemore, who was located in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., activated a two-way intercom inside the residence and spoke with one of the occupants. McLemore asked if everything was o.k., to which the occupant replied, “No, we have a fire.” McLemore then asked if the resident wanted her to call the fire department, to which the occupant replied, “Please, please.” McLemore then said, “O.k., thank you. I’m going to go ahead and get them over there for you.” She then confirmed the resident’s name before disconnecting the two-way intercom. McLemore called the fire district on a non-emergency number and reported a “fire alarm” at 149 Michele Drive. The dispatcher for the Contra Costa Regional Fire Communications Center placed the call on hold to answer a higher-priority 911 emergency call and, at 1:42 a.m., a second dispatcher retrieved the Security Associates call, which was still on hold. Once again, McLemore indicated that she was calling to report a fire alarm at 149 Michele Drive. Following standard practice, the dispatcher for the Contra Costa Regional Fire Communications Center called the residents at 149 Michele Drive to verify the alarm, but the call resulted in a busy signal. The dispatcher then made a second call, which was not answered. As a result, the dispatcher initiated a residential fire alarm dispatch at 1:43 a.m. and Engine Co. 70 was dispatched to 149 Michele Drive less than a minute later. Two minutes after Engine Co. 70 had been dispatched, the call was upgraded from a “fire alarm” to a “residential structure fire.” At 1:50 a.m., Engine 70 was advised by dispatch that the resident was still trying to get her husband out of the house and that it was “unknown if he made it.” Burton replied that he and his coworker were on scene, but that they had “have heavy smoke and a fire in a single story residential structure.” A minute later, Burton transmitted an updated report indicating that they had two people inside and that both he and his coworker were making entry in an attempt to save them. After knocking down the fire in the living room, Burton and his coworker exited 149 Michele Drive and retrieved a thermal imaging camera to assist them in assessing the situation. At 1:57 a.m., the body of one of the occupants, who had previously spoken with McLemore, was found in the residence and removed by members of Engine Co. 73. Burton and his coworker then re-entered the residence in an attempt to rescue the other occupant from the fire. At 1:59 a.m., Unit 76 arrived on the scene and at 2:00 a.m., an 8 second video was taken showing what appeared to be a fire gas ignition, or flashover, occurring at 149 Michele Drive. It is believed that Burton and his coworker died as a result of the flashover while they were inside the residence attempting to rescue the other occupant. At 2:05 a.m., the battalion commander transmitted a report of a missing firefighter and requested an additional engine. At approximately 2:22 a.m., while searching through the bedroom in 149 Michele Drive, the body of Burton’s coworker was found. Soon thereafter, Burton’s body was found along with the body of the other occupant. Chantel Burton, acting as the guardian ad litem for the decedent’s two minor children, Megan and Joshua Burton, sued Pinnacle Security CA, LLP; Pinnacle Security LLC; Security Associates International Inc.; and Kendra McLemore. Chantel Burton alleged that the fire was inaccurately reported by McLemore at Security Associates. Thus, he alleged that McLemore negligently reported the fire, causing a time delay and other inaccuracies. Chantel Brown also alleged that Security Associates was vicariously liable for McLemore’s actions, as her employer, and that Pinnacle Security CA, LLP and Pinnacle Security LLC were negligent for never supplying Security Associates with a proper emergency phone number. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that approximately 2 minutes and 12 seconds after McLemore was told that there was a fire alarm, McLemore called the fire district on a non-emergency number since Pinnacle Security failed to provide Security Associates with a proper emergency number. Counsel contended that McLemore never told the district that she had communicated with the resident or that the resident had reported a fire. Counsel also contended that given that McLemore had inaccurately reported a “fire alarm,” rather than accurately reporting a “fire in progress,” the dispatcher for the Contra Costa Regional Fire Communications Center placed the call on hold to answer a higher priority 911 emergency call and left McLemore on hold for 4 minutes and 51 seconds. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that when the second dispatcher retrieved the call from hold, McLemore once again inaccurately indicated that she was calling to report a “fire alarm,” not a “fire in progress,” and again failed to report that she had communicated with the residents and was aware of a fire. Plaintiffs’ counsel asserted that had McLemore called an emergency number, rather than a non-emergency number, and accurately reported a fire, the call would not have been placed on hold, it would have been given a higher priority, and the response would have been much greater in magnitude. Counsel contended that rather than it being a Level 4 response, in which one engine with three firefighters and no chief was dispatched, Contra Costa Regional Fire Communications Center policies and procedures would have called for a Level 2 response, which would have included three engines, a quint (a tanker truck equipped with specialized equipment, such as chainsaws), and a battalion chief in a separate vehicle, or 16 firefighters including a chief. Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel contended that had the call been made accurately, there would have been a Level 2 response to the fire on 149 Michelle Drive within four minutes of taking the call, rather than it taking almost 15 minutes, as it did on the date in question. Defense counsel contended that it was the county’s fault for not realizing the magnitude of the fire and for not properly responding with accurate firefighters for the fire., Matthew Burton died in the flashover at the scene as a result of smoke inhalation and thermal burns. He was 34. The decedent is survived by his wife and two minor children, Megan and Joshua. Thus, Megan and Joshua sought recovery of damages for the loss of their father, whom they lived with along with their mother. The children alleged wrongful death damages that included their loss of parental guidance as well as their loss of love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society and moral support.