Does the Casiola Franchise Agreement allow a franchisee to waive claims under any applicable state franchise law, including fraud in the inducement?

According to the 2024 Casiola Franchise Disclosure Document, several state-specific amendments address the waiver of claims under applicable state franchise laws. For franchisees in New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Hawaii, and Michigan, the FDD explicitly states that no statement, questionnaire, or acknowledgment signed by a franchisee can waive claims under state franchise law, including claims of fraud in the inducement. This provision supersedes any other conflicting terms in documents related to the franchise agreement. These stipulations ensure that franchisees in these states retain their legal rights and protections under state franchise laws, regardless of any agreements made during the commencement of the franchise relationship.

For North Dakota franchisees specifically, the FDD notes that provisions requiring a waiver of exemplary and punitive damages are not enforceable under Section 51-19-09 of the North Dakota Franchise Investment Law. Additionally, any clause limiting claims to within one year is considered unfair and unjust under the same law, meaning the standard statute of limitations under North Dakota law will apply. The FDD also specifies that any provision requiring the Franchise Agreement to be construed under the laws of a state other than North Dakota or waiving the right to a jury trial is deemed unfair and unenforceable for North Dakota franchisees.

In Maryland, the FDD clarifies that any claims arising under the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law must be brought within three years after the franchise grant. It also states that general releases required for renewal, sale, assignment, or transfer of the Franchise Agreement do not apply to liabilities under the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law. Furthermore, representations requiring franchisees to release, estop, or waive liability will not act as a release, estoppel, or waiver of any liability incurred under the Maryland Franchise Registration and Disclosure Law.

For Minnesota franchisees, the FDD states that Item 17 of the Franchise Agreement cannot include a general release of claims against Casiola that may be subject to the Minnesota Franchise Law, as Minnesota Rule 2860.4400D prohibits franchisors from requiring such releases. The FDD also notes that Minnesota Statute §80C.21 and Minnesota Rule 2860.4400J prevent Casiola from requiring litigation to occur outside of Minnesota. The disclosure document and franchise agreement cannot reduce any rights provided under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 80C, or rights to procedures, forums, or remedies provided by Minnesota law. These state-specific amendments collectively reinforce the protection of franchisees' rights under their respective state laws, preventing unintentional or forced waivers of legal claims.