Are there any exceptions to the Dryject franchisee's obligation to indemnify the franchisor?

According to Dryject's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, there are some exceptions to the franchisee's obligation to indemnify Dryject. Specifically, a modification exists such that the franchisee is not required to indemnify, reimburse, defend, or hold harmless Dryject or any other indemnified party for losses or liabilities resulting from the indemnified party's negligence, willful misconduct, strict liability, or fraud. This modification applies to any provision in the franchise agreement or related agreements that would otherwise require such indemnification. This exception appears to be related to Washington state law.

This exception to the indemnification clause is favorable for prospective Dryject franchisees. Indemnification clauses can be broad, potentially exposing franchisees to significant financial risk for issues they did not directly cause. This modification limits that risk by ensuring franchisees are not responsible for Dryject's own actions or failures. It is important for franchisees to understand the scope of this exception and how it interacts with other provisions of the franchise agreement.

It is also important to note that this exception may be specific to franchisees operating in Washington state, as the document references RCW (Revised Code of Washington) sections related to noncompetition and nonsolicitation agreements. Franchisees in other states may not have the same protections. Prospective franchisees should carefully review the franchise agreement and any applicable state laws to fully understand their indemnification obligations and any available exceptions.