Insured and well
Occasionally, a franchise agreement contains a clause that obliges the franchisee to take out legal expenses insurance. Taken in itself, the idea arises that this clause may be too far-reaching in the context of the legal and economic independence of the franchisee. In addition, it is up to the franchisee himself whether or not he is insured in case he needs to take out legal assistance insurance. Nevertheless, it is not unwise to include such a clause in the franchise agreement, as this is permitted in the context of independence or if it contributes to an increased risk with regard to a disguised employer/employee relationship (fictitious employment). To ensure this, prior approval must be requested from the relevant implementing body. Assuming that the clause is in order, such a clause protects the franchisee in bad weather. It should be expressly considered that the vast majority of cases in which the franchisee has to rely on legal assistance have nothing to do with the relationship with the franchisor at all. Even in such situations, however, adequate legal assistance insurance offers a guarantee for all parties involved. Statistically, however, this rarely occurs in practice, in relation to all other legal problems that can happen to a franchisee. This includes, for example, labor disputes with staff, rental problems, or, for example, problems with the municipality in connection with permits, etc. A good franchisor anticipates for the benefit of its franchisees by informing them that they can insure themselves for most forms of legal assistance. It goes without saying that the quality of that legal assistance and therefore of the legal expenses insurer is of great importance. Not only should the premium be considered, but above all the policy conditions.
Incidentally, it should be noted that a franchisor can insure itself against most disputes that may befall it. Here too, however, it is of eminent importance that a careful inventory is made before one is insured, under which conditions and whether a (specialised) lawyer can handle the matter if necessary.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
Director’s liability of a franchisee after failing to rely on an unsound prognosis.
On 11 July 2017, the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch made a decision on whether the franchisor could successfully sue the director of a BV for non-compliance with the
Liability accountant for prepared prognosis?
In a judgment of the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch of 11 July 2017, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2017:3153, it was discussed that franchisees accused the franchisor's accountant of being liable
How far does the bank’s duty of care extend?
Some time ago the question was raised in case law what the position of the bank is in the triangular relationship franchisor – bank – franchisee.
Burden of proof reversal in forecasting as misleading advertising?
In an interlocutory judgment of 15 June 2017, the District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2017:3833, ruled on a claim for (among other things) suspension of the non-compete clause.
Fine for franchisor because aspiring franchisee is foreigner
On 5 July 2017, the Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2017:1815, decided whether, in the case of (proposed) cooperation between a franchisor and a prospective franchisee, the franchisor
Article in Entrance: “Company name”
“I came up with a wonderful name for my catering company and incurred the necessary costs for this. Now there is another entrepreneur who is going to use almost the same one. Is that allowed?"