Court Dismisses Indemnity Clause

[Deborah]

The court issued a ruling regarding HLA's counterclaim against the original named plaintiffs:
 
"The ruling dismisses defendant HLA Inc.'s counterclaim against the original named plaintiffs.  The court held that the contractual clause on which HLA's counterclaim was based violated Georgia public policy."
 
Basically the clause in HLA's contract that tried to contractually indemnify HLA from all costs and attorneys' fees (Parents would have to pay all of HLA's attorneys' fees if the parents sued HLA) is considered a violation of Georgia public policy. Parents will not have to pay HLA costs and attorneys' fees should the parent sue HLA.

[RobertBruce]

Awwwww...I'll bet all those legal fees just became a whole lot more pressing.

[happyday7]

Good News! This is how it should be. Glad to hear that parents can go ahead with their suits against HLA with a no retaliation problem.  :exclaim:

[TheWho]

Great news for the parents, they must be breathing easier!!

I would guess HLA was all ready prepared to have them thrown out? the contract wording was old and outdated
Attorney fee clauses and the like are being more and more thrown out of court especially when an individual or group of individuals are going up against a corporation.  These clauses are put in there to scare people from suing, but have not been successful (in many cases) in recovery unless one corporation is suing another (or landlord/tenant cases).  If the judge allowed this clause to stand then the people would be responsible for not just the attorneys fee but all associated costs that HLA incurred over and above the attorneys fee, including expert witness fees, payments for court reporters, fees for filing documents with the court, as well as costs of travel, printing, photocopying, postage, telephone, and messenger services etc..
This could add up to such a substantial amount that the families could go bankrupt and lose their homes so courts are throwing them out??. What they are writing in contracts now is a attorney fee with a ?Cap? so that people suing would be liable for up to a certain amount of say $100,000 so that families are not wiped out.  Many contracts are responding this way to appease the courts.

[Deborah]

When did you read the HLA contract?
According to my source, it doesn't matter what the contract says if you are defrauded, the contract becomes null and void.

[RobertBruce]

(He didn't)

You see Deb, Cindy has read a contract before, thus he believes himself to be an expert on all contracts.

[Anonymous]

Great news for the parents, they must be breathing easier!!

I would guess HLA was all ready prepared to have them thrown out? the contract wording was old and outdated
Attorney fee clauses and the like are being more and more thrown out of court especially when an individual or group of individuals are going up against a corporation.  These clauses are put in there to scare people from suing, but have not been successful (in many cases) in recovery unless one corporation is suing another (or landlord/tenant cases).  If the judge allowed this clause to stand then the people would be responsible for not just the attorneys fee but all associated costs that HLA incurred over and above the attorneys fee, including expert witness fees, payments for court reporters, fees for filing documents with the court, as well as costs of travel, printing, photocopying, postage, telephone, and messenger services etc..
This could add up to such a substantial amount that the families could go bankrupt and lose their homes so courts are throwing them out??. What they are writing in contracts now is a attorney fee with a ?Cap? so that people suing would be liable for up to a certain amount of say $100,000 so that families are not wiped out.  Many contracts are responding this way to appease the courts.

HLA's new contract no longer contains this language - probably on the advice of their high paid attorneys.

[TheWho]

Great news for the parents, they must be breathing easier!!

I would guess HLA was all ready prepared to have them thrown out? the contract wording was old and outdated
Attorney fee clauses and the like are being more and more thrown out of court especially when an individual or group of individuals are going up against a corporation.  These clauses are put in there to scare people from suing, but have not been successful (in many cases) in recovery unless one corporation is suing another (or landlord/tenant cases).  If the judge allowed this clause to stand then the people would be responsible for not just the attorneys fee but all associated costs that HLA incurred over and above the attorneys fee, including expert witness fees, payments for court reporters, fees for filing documents with the court, as well as costs of travel, printing, photocopying, postage, telephone, and messenger services etc..
This could add up to such a substantial amount that the families could go bankrupt and lose their homes so courts are throwing them out??. What they are writing in contracts now is a attorney fee with a ?Cap? so that people suing would be liable for up to a certain amount of say $100,000 so that families are not wiped out.  Many contracts are responding this way to appease the courts.

HLA's new contract no longer contains this language - probably on the advice of their high paid attorneys.

Thanks, guest, Thats what I thought and we have changed the writing in our contracts when it doesn?t apply to another corporation.  No judge wants to award these types of fees and see a person lose their homes because of a lost lawsuit against a large corporation.  Tenant/landlord contracts still carry it to avoid nuisance lawsuits which can keep the landlord tied up for ever and go bankrupt, I believe this is where the clause originally grew out of.

Just curious did they eliminate it all together or place a cap on it so they can recoup a portion of the attorneys fees in the event the plaintiff fails to make a case or loses the lawsuit?

[Anonymous]

They can't collect a penny.

[Anonymous]

Hopefully more parents and students will come forward to take action against the school now that the fee shifting has been deemed to be in violation of GA. public policy.

[TheWho]

They can't collect a penny.

I realize the status of this lawsuit that it was thrown out??I meant the wording of the new contracts...just curious to know if they eliminated the clause altogether or reworded it to ?cap? it off at a ceiling price.

[hanzomon4]

YaY!!!

It's so wonderful watching a program choke on it's own bullshit


*eyes welling up with tears of joy*

[Anonymous]

They can't collect a penny.

I realize the status of this lawsuit that it was thrown out??I meant the wording of the new contracts...just curious to know if they eliminated the clause altogether or reworded it to ?cap? it off at a ceiling price.

The clause has been eliminated in its entirety because it is a violation of public policy.

Why do you have such a big interest in HLA? You didn't have a child attend HLA so what's your motive? Are you involved with another program and just fishing for information to try to protect them? In the past you've pretty much defended your precious TBS's - your new found support doesn't seem sincere and I don't trust you.

[Deborah]

Who is not here to be supportive. Read carefully.

Everyone should be protected from fivolous lawsuit, and they are. Anyone has the right to request that their attorney fees be paid by the plaintiff if the suit has no merit, with or without any contract clause.
In this case, it's like asking a rape victim to cover the perpetrator's legal expenses.
How many parents has that clause stopped from acting?
I think it's been very effective for the purpose it was intended.

[TheWho]

Why do you have such a big interest in HLA? You didn't have a child attend HLA so what's your motive? Are you involved with another program and just fishing for information to try to protect them? In the past you've pretty much defended your precious TBS's - your new found support doesn't seem sincere and I don't trust you.

I am interested in the details of the outcome of this lawsuit.  I believe it could be a small landmark case which will affect the industry and shape the way schools apply (or don?t apply) for licenses and if the schools will gradually adjust their model to a more clinical one (as a result) which can eventually be measured for effectiveness based on a feedback system.  I believe this is the future of many of these schools especially as they begin to get more and more specialized in their acceptance of children to insure success.

I know many people here believe I defend all TBSs and the reason, I believe, is that many here feel they are all are evil and may find it hard to believe some may be good and others may be bad.  I support some programs which I am familiar with, not the whole industry, as many here believe.