Are there any exceptions to the dispute resolution process for Bumble Roofing?
Bumble_Roofing Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
The waiver in Section 15.3 of the Franchise Agreement does not apply with respect to claims arising under the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, RCW 19.100, and the rules adopted thereunder.
No statement, questionnaire, or acknowledgment signed or agreed to by a franchisee in connection with the commencement of the franchise relationship shall have the effect of (i) waiving any claims under any applicable state franchise law, including fraud in the inducement, or (ii) disclaiming reliance on any statement made by any franchisor, franchise seller, or other person acting on behalf of the franchisor. This provision supersedes any other term of any document executed in connection with the franchise.
Section 1.1, 1.2, and 1.8 of the Franchise Agreement is deleted.
Section 14.4 of the Franchise Agreement is deleted.
Section 21.1, 21.2, 21.3, 21.4, and 21.5 of the Franchise Agreement is deleted.
-
- Any capitalized terms that are not defined in this Addendum shall have the meaning given them in the Franchise Agreement.
-
- Except as expressly modified by this Addendum, the Franchise Agreement remains unmodified and in full force and effect.
This Addendum is being entered into in connection with the Franchise Agreement. In the event of any conflict between this Addendum and the Franchise Agreement, the terms and conditions of this Addendum shall apply.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Addendum as of the date Franchisor signs below.
BUMBLE ROOFING FRANCHISOR, LLC Its: Its:
Source: Item 17 — RENEWAL, TERMINATION, TRANSFER AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION (FDD pages 43–45)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Bumble Roofing's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, there are several state-specific addenda that outline exceptions and modifications to the standard dispute resolution process. For instance, the Maryland addendum notes that while the franchise agreement typically mandates dispute resolution through arbitration, a Maryland regulation deems it unfair to require franchisees to waive their right to file a lawsuit in Maryland for violations of Maryland Franchise Law. This creates a potential conflict concerning the enforceability of the forum selection requirement due to the Federal Arbitration Act.
The Illinois addendum specifies that Illinois law governs the agreements and that any franchise agreement provision designating jurisdiction or venue outside of Illinois is void, although arbitration outside of Illinois is permitted. Furthermore, Illinois law stipulates that franchisees cannot waive compliance with the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act or any other Illinois law. Similarly, the Rhode Island addendum states that any franchise agreement provisions restricting jurisdiction or venue to a forum outside of Rhode Island or requiring the application of another state's laws are void concerning claims enforceable under the Rhode Island Franchise Investment Act.
The California addendum indicates that any condition requiring a franchisee to waive compliance with California franchise law is void, and the provision in the franchise agreement that requires the application of the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia may not be enforceable under California law. The Washington addendum specifies that the waiver in Section 15.3 of the Franchise Agreement does not apply to claims arising under the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, and franchisees cannot waive claims under any applicable state franchise law, including fraud in the inducement, or disclaim reliance on statements made by the franchisor. Finally, the Virginia addendum notes that provisions allowing termination of the franchise upon the franchisee's bankruptcy may not be enforceable under federal bankruptcy law and that termination without reasonable cause is unlawful under the Virginia Retail Franchising Act.