What was the date of the accident that led to the litigation described in the Aplus FDD?
Aplus Franchise · 2024 FDDAnswer from 2024 FDD Document
In June of 2020, Plaintiffs Sunoco (R&M), LLC and Sunoco, LLC (collectively "Sunoco") filed an action for breach of contract and indemnification against Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company ("Penn National"), franchisee Greyhound Aramingo Petroleum Co., Inc. ("Greyhound") and Sergey Gorlov arising out of defendants' failure to perform their respective contractual duties to Sunoco with respect to litigation arising out of an accident occurring on September 25, 2014, at a Sunoco-branded gas station located at 2750 Aramingo Avenue in the City of Philadelphia. In its complaint, Sunoco alleges that Defendant Greyhound and non-party SG II, LLC (both of which are owned or controlled by Defendant Gorlov) entered into a dealer franchise agreement with Sunoco and undertook indemnity and insurance obligations as it pertains to the above-
Source: Item 3 — LITIGATION (FDD pages 14–15)
What This Means (2024 FDD)
According to Aplus's 2024 Franchise Disclosure Document, one of the lawsuits, Sunoco (R&M), LLC and Sunoco, LLC vs. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, Greyhound Aramingo Petroleum Co., Inc., and Sergey Gorlov, involves an accident that occurred on September 25, 2014. The litigation arose out of the failure of certain parties to fulfill their contractual duties to Sunoco with respect to this accident, which took place at a Sunoco-branded gas station located at 2750 Aramingo Avenue in Philadelphia.
The suit, originally filed in June 2020, alleges that Greyhound Aramingo Petroleum Co., Inc. and non-party SG II, LLC (both owned or controlled by Sergey Gorlov) did not meet their indemnity and insurance obligations to Sunoco, as outlined in their dealer franchise agreement. Sunoco claims that Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, Greyhound, and Sergey Gorlov breached their contractual obligations related to settling personal injury litigation connected to the accident.
It is important to note that this case is still pending in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania as of the date of the FDD. Prospective Aplus franchisees should be aware of ongoing litigation involving the franchisor, as it could potentially impact the financial stability or reputation of the brand. Reviewing the details of this and other legal matters in Item 3 of the FDD can provide valuable insight into the risks and challenges associated with investing in an Aplus franchise.