The big, long list of franchise lawsuits included below & disclosed in our 2016 Snap-on Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD) might embarrass some franchisors, but not Snap-on, Inc. (NYSE: SNA).
At Snap-on, we’re proud of how we’ve pulled ourselves up by our breaches.
Should we be embarrassed to be sued repeatedly for fraud, deceptive & unfair practices, misrepresentation…?
Should we hide our heads in shame just because of our continuous allegations of franchise law violations, wrongful termination, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing…?
On the contrary!
The list of allegations we’ve been sued for by franchisees is a testament to the lengths we’ll go to to return shareholder value at the expense of our franchise dealers!
Franchisee Allegations Made Against Snap-on, Inc.*
|Misrepresentations & Fraud
General Nastiness & Bullying
* a partial list of allegations from Snap-on lawsuits disclosed in the 2016 FDD
Snap-on Franchise Lawsuits Disclosed in the 2016 Snap-on Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD)
Snap-on Inc. is proud of our rich heritage of franchisee litigation and class-action lawsuits.
Should we be embarrassed at spending nearly $240 million settling franchisee lawsuits in the past decade?
Heck no! The hundreds of millions we’ve spent in litigation related to the crap we do through our Crap-on Dealer’s Strategy & Initiative is a negligible cost compared to the profits we reap by crapping on our franchise dealers.
Sure, we’ve got to pay off a few loudmouths and troublemakers, but the vast majority of franchisees just drop their Snap-on logoed britches and take it like… men.
At Snap-on Inc. (NYSE: SNA), we know you sometimes gotta drop a few breaches to keep raising stock value.
|Daniel Jacobson v. Snap-on Tools Company LLC and Snap-on Inc.
Filed May 12, 2015
|Class action on behalf of Plaintiff and all persons who signed franchise agreements with defendants in the State of California within four years preceding May 12, 2015. Plaintiff alleges that franchisees are misclassified and in fact are employees under the California Labor Code. Plaintiff alleges violation of the California Labor Code and California
Business and Professions Code and seeks un-reimbursed necessary employment expenses, restitution of fees deducted from compensation, overtime compensation, meal and rest period compensation, restitution of fees, liquidated damages, interest, waiting time penalties and available statutory penalties and damages.
|To be arbitrated on an individual basis.
|Snap-on Tools of Canada Ltd. and Snap-on Credit Canada Ltd. v. Kevin Tyson.
Filed October 6, 2005
|Snap-on Canada and Snap-on Credit Canada Ltd. as a collection action requesting judgment in the amount of $95,793.69, interest and costs against a former franchisee, Kevin Tyson.
Tyson denied the allegations and filed a counterclaim alleging breach of the franchise agreement and wrongful termination of the franchise agreement and seeking damages of $156,000, interest and costs.
|No trial date has been set.
|Mike Barnes v. Snap-on Incorporated
Filed June 24, 2006
|Allegations included failure to provide adequate training; failure to provide field manager support; failure to provide technical support for sale of equipment; failure to provide adequate territory and misrepresentation of profitability of business
and expenses of business.
|Snap-on agreed to pay Mike Barnes $87,500.00
|Tim Barnes v. Snap-on Incorporated
|Snap-on agreed to pay Tim Barnes $75,000.00
|Christopher Burgasser and Christina Burgasser v. Snap-on Incorporated, Snap-on Tools
Company LLC, Does 1 through 20 inclusive.
Filed March 21, 2012
|Allegations included material misrepresentation both by written and oral
communication to convince plaintiff, Christopher, Burgasser, to enter into a Gateway Franchise Agreement with Snap-on. It also provided a separate count of material misrepresentation on behalf
of plaintiff, Christina Burgasser.
|Snap-on paid the plaintiffs $20,000.00
|Luis Canaveral v. Snap-on Incorporated
Filed June 26, 2006
breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
|Snap-on paid Mr. Canaveral $82,500.00
|Darin Canetti v. Snap-on Tools Company LLC, Snap-on Credit LLC, Bart Wignall, Michael
Montemurro, Nicholas Loffredo and David Pence (NJ).
Filed December, 2004
|Allegations included misrepresentation, fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
|Snap-on paid Canetti $240,000.00
|Scott W. Copperthite v. Snap-on Tools Company LLC
Filed February, 2007
|Allegations included breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation and breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. Snapon counterclaimed against Copperthite for $85,484.51 for unpaid product purchases.
|Snap-on paid Copperthite $60,000.00
|Ronald DeSantis, Matt Setser, Shawn Dickmeyer, William Bradley Freeman, Scott Factor,
Scott Ingenito, Aaron Reeves, Anthony Hobby, Dwight Lankart, Richard Fortuna, and Paul Vladyka,on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Snap-on Tools Company LLC,
Snap-on Credit LLC and Snap-on Incorporated
Filed May 17, 2006
Action set forth various alleged deceptive practices, alleged violation of RICO, state statutes prohibiting deceptive trade practices, deceptive franchise practices and consumer fraud, common law fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
|Snap-on paid class participants in March 2007. Snap-on recorded a $38,000,000.00 pretax charge in the second quarter of 2006 representing its best estimate of the costs to settle this matter, including attorney fees, costs and expenses.
Under terms of the settlement
(i) a current franchisees receive credits to accounts with Snap-on Tools up to $9,200.00
(ii) a former franchisees receive an amount up to $20,000.00 and forgiveness of debt owed to Snap-on and Snap-on Credit;
(iii) each named plaintiff will receive an additional $50,000.00; and
(iv) certain current and former franchisees who were represented by an attorney as of April 18, 2006, received an additional $15,000.00
|Timothy Geisel v. Snap-on (TX).
Filed September 4, 2002
|Allegations include breach of contract, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.
|Snap-on paid Mr. Geisel $210,000.00
|Perry E. Littlejohn and wife, Betty H. Littlejohn v. Snap-on Tools Company
Filed July 20, 2000
|Allegations include negligence in handling plaintiff’s inventory insurance claim, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and slander.
|Snap-on paid the Littlejohns $50,000.00
|Kevin Meehan v. Snap-on Tools Company (NJ).
Filed December 30, 2003
|Snap-on paid Meehan $315,000.00
|Michael T. Rowley v. Snap-on Incorporated
Filed June 28, 2006
|Allegations include breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
|Snap-on will pay Mr. Rowley $150,000.00
|Lee A. Smith v. Snap-on Tools Company
February 3, 2004
|Snap-on paid Smith $30,000.00
|Robin Dale Hayes v. Snap-on Tools Company LLC and Bill Schneider
Filed June 27, 2005
|Allegations included breach of contract, breach of implied
covenants of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation, violation of the Florida
Franchise Act and tortuous interference.
|Snap-on paid Hayes $345,000.00
|D&B Automotive Equipment, Inc., a California corporation dba Automotive Equipment,
Collision Equipment Specialist, Equipment Specialists Co., P.A.C.E., Inc., a Washington
Corporation, Pallas Equipment, Inc., a Colorado corporation and Harold W. Fizone v. Snap-on,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Hein-Werner Corporation, a Wisconsin corporation dba Collision
Repair Equipment Group and Blackhawk-Kansas Jack and David E. Cox
Filed February 21, 2003
|Allegations include breach of contract, fraud,
breach of implied warranties, violation of deceptive and unfair trade practices statutes, tortuous interference with contract, tortuous interference with prospective business advantage, and defamation.
|Snap-on paid plaintiffs $220,000.00
|Steve Johnstone Holdings Ltd. and Steve Johnstone v. Snap-on Tools of Canada Ltd.
Filed March 2006
|Allegations include misrepresentation, breach of the franchise agreement, forced
purchasing and breach of fiduciary duty.
|Snap-on Canada paid the plaintiffs $75,000
|Chuck McDonald, Stanley Rogers, Charles Smith, Kevin Ford and Barry Gordon v. Snap-on Tools Company, Snap-on Credit Corporation and Cyril Gray (Class Action) (AR).
Filed May 22, 2003
|Allegations include breach of contract, violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, civil conspiracy, and negligence.
This is a lawsuit brought by five Snap-on mechanic customers. Plaintiffs claim the defendant, Cyril Gray, a former Snap-on Dealer, acting on behalf of Snap-on and Snap-on Credit, committed numerous improprieties pertaining to customer accounts.
|Snap-on paid plaintiffs $19,400.00 and released combined debt of $48,000.00
Feel free to thank & praise Snap-on Inc. for decades of stock dividends and shareholder returns by masterfully manipulating the most useful tools of all:
The Snap-on franchisees and dealers who will loyally defend the Crap-on Dealers program no matter what we do to them!
Feel free to praise Snap-on’s “Crap-on Dealer Program” with your real name or anonymously!
DON’T MISS: The world’s LARGEST gallery of Snap-on memes
Tags: Snap-on lawsuits, Snap-on litigation, Snap-on franchise lawsuits, Snap-on franchise litigation, Snap-on sued, Snap-on Franchise Disclosure Document, Snap-on FDD, Snap-on Tools lawsuits, Snap-on Tools litigation, Crap-on parody, Crap-on website, Snap-on parody
Disclaimer: Crap-on.com is an independent satirical parody website that is not affiliated with Snap-on Inc. (NYSE: SNA), Snap-on Tools Company LLC, any particular Snap-on franchisee, former franchisee, franchisee group or 3rd party vendor. Trademarks belong to their respective owners.