A Nebraska federal court granted franchisor Home Instead, Inc.’s motion to dismiss nineteen Home Instead franchisees’ claims for breach of a 2024 Settlement Agreement. WJM Home Care, LLC v. Home Instead, Inc., 2026 WL 904279 (D. Neb. Apr. 2, 2026).
The franchisees alleged that Home Instead breached the 2024 Settlement Agreement by refusing to allow them to obtain early renewals of their franchise agreements and by attempting to force them onto Home Instead’s newer “Care Platform” business model. The franchisees pointed to Section 5.0 of the Settlement Agreement, which addressed existing franchisees’ renewal rights. The franchisees contended that Home Instead promised a five‑year auto‑renewal, without discretion, for franchise agreements executed within three years of the Settlement Agreement effective date. Home Instead moved to dismiss, arguing that the complaint failed to state a claim because the Settlement Agreement did not create the purported early‑renewal rights.
Applying Nebraska law, the court held that contracts written in clear and unambiguous language must be enforced as written and that Section 5.0 did not provide the broad early‑renewal rights the franchisees sought. The court found that the franchisees sought to create contractual obligations or ambiguity where none existed and that the Settlement Agreement extended renewal rights only to franchise agreements that expire before March 17, 2027. The court also rejected the franchisees’ reliance on the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, explaining that the covenant cannot be used to modify or expand express contract terms. Because neither the breach‑of‑contract claim nor the good‑faith claim was plausibly pleaded, the court dismissed the case with prejudice.