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
Infringement of exclusive service area by franchisor in connection with formula change dated February 27, 2017
On 30 January 2017, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2017:688 (Intertoys/franchisee), was asked how to deal with the
Forecasts at startup franchise formula
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 14 February 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:455 (Tot Straks/franchisee) on the question whether the franchisor had provided an unsatisfactory prognosis and whether the
Mandatory transfer of franchise business to franchisor?
On January 23, 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:412 (CoffeeCompany/Dam Spirit BV) rendered a judgment on the question whether a franchisee upon termination of the cooperation
Transfer customer data to franchisor
In its judgment of 10 January 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:68 (OnlineAccountants.nl), the Amsterdam Court ruled, among other things, on the question of how customer data should be transferred.
Franchise Closing Sale – Who Gets the Sale Proceeds?
The judgment of the District Court of the Northern Netherlands dated 12 October 2016, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2016:5061 (Administrator/Expert Group and Rabobank), focused on the question whether the franchisor, together with the bank,
Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Judge: franchisor’s duty of care comparable to that of a bank”
Various judgments in 2016 made it clear how high the standard of care for a franchisor towards its franchisees is.