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
Article in Entrance: “New owner”
“The catering company where I work has been taken over. The new owner now says that I no longer have to work for him, but can he refuse me as an employee?”
Directors’ liability in the settlement of a franchise agreement
Privately, can the director of a franchisee legal entity be liable to the franchisor if the franchisee legal entity wrongfully fails to provide business to the franchisor?
Column Franchise + – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Towards strict liability”
The Supreme Court recently ruled in a prognosis issue.
Article in Entrance: “Rentals”
“The landlord increased the prices of the property every year, but he hasn't done this for 2 years, maybe he forgets. Can he still claim an overdue amount later?”
No valid appeal to non-compete clause in franchising
On 28 February 2017, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1469, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland ruled on whether a franchisee could be bound by a non-compete clause.
Structurally unsound revenue forecasts from the franchisor
On 15 March 2017, the District Court of Limburg ruled in eight similar judgments (including ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2017:2344) on the franchise agreements of various franchisees of the P3 franchise formula.