Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Alvord Decision: Why Periodic Review of Insurance Policies Is a Must for Franchisors

By J. Kevin Cogan and J. Todd Kennard
February 24, 2010

Franchisors, like other businesses, should periodically review their insurance policies to make certain that they understand the scope of their existing coverage and to identify (and remedy) any significant gaps in that coverage. Given that franchisors are more frequently finding themselves in the cross-hairs of their franchisees, franchisors should pay particular attention to whether they have coverage for franchisee claims and, if so, the extent of that coverage. Franchisors should not wait until they have become a target to determine whether they have insurance protection.

A federal judge recently held that a franchisor did not have coverage for claims by a former franchisee under a Directors and Officers policy that excluded claims “based upon, arising from, or in any way related to any Claim made by or on behalf of any franchisee of the Company in any capacity.” (Emphasis added.) The court determined that an endorsement to the D&O policy excluded coverage regardless of whether the claim was made by a current or former franchisee. Alvord Investments, LLC v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. et al., 660 F. Supp. 2d 850 (W.D. Tenn. 2009).

Read These Next
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

Bit Parts Image

Summary Judgment Denied Defendant in Declaratory Action by Producer of To Kill a Mockingbird Broadway Play Seeking Amateur Theatrical Rights

Risks of “Baseball Arbitration” in Resolving Real Estate Disputes Image

“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.

One Overlooked Element of Executive Safety: Data Privacy Image

Executives have access to some of the company's most sensitive information, and they're increasingly being targeted by hackers looking to steal company secrets or to perpetrate cybercrimes.

Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?