UPDATED: Kraft Group Offers Town Legal Defense in Protective Custody Lawsuit

Company would provide Foxborough with legal representation to defend the town and Police Chief Edward O’Leary as well as cover the costs of the attorney but would not pay for damages owed if town lost lawsuit.

Editor's note: This article was updated to include comments from Foxborough Board of Selectmen chair James DeVellis on Jan. 30, 2013 at 12:11 p.m.

Facing a class action lawsuit for allegedly holding people “unlawfully” in protective custody during Gillette Stadium events, the town reached out to its largest business partner for assistance.

Foxborough, through attorney John Davis of Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP, reached out to the Kraft Group in November to ask if the company would be indemnifying the town in the Weldner/Dutton lawsuit against Foxborough Police Chief Edward O’Leary and the town of Foxborough.

“The town has an indemnification policy in place provided by the Kraft Group that protects the town during stadium events," Foxborough Board of Selectmen chair James DeVellis said. "It has been used in the past to hold the town harmless and is standard protocol in this type of situation where a stadium is on public land and serviced by town staff such as police and fire personnel."

The Kraft Group informed the town in a letter addressed to Davis on Dec. 27 that it would not be indemnifying the town in the class action lawsuit because, according to the indemnification agreement between the town and NPS (Gillette Stadium), the Kraft Group is not required to indemnify the town in a lawsuit with claims involving “negligence, gross negligence or willful misconduct.”

The Weldner/Dutton lawsuit alleges negligence on behalf of the town and Chief O’Leary, which, according to Kraft Group attorney James Cobery’s letter to the town, removes the company from legal obligation to defend or indemnify the town.

“NPS’ understanding of its duties under the so-called License Conditions or Stadium Lease in this case differs from the positions of the town expressed in your letter,” Cobery stated in a letter to Davis. “Among other things, since the claims asserted in the [Weldner/Dutton] lawsuit against the town are, given their prima facie elements, by their nature claims of ‘negligence, gross negligence or willful misconduct,’ the exculpatory provisions of the indemnification clauses at issue obviate any duty of NPS to defend or to indemnify the town.”

DeVellis disagrees, citing the town has not yet received any information that would suggest or prove Foxborough police acted in negligence during stadium events.

"There has been nothing presented to our board that indicates the Foxborough police have acted in a manner to nullify the current insurance coverage and the lawsuit was just filed so there has been no judgment supporting this position,” DeVellis said.

Asked to elaborate on the Kraft Group's response to the town, DeVellis said he could not comment on any specifics.

"A lawsuit is in process and I cannot speak to the merits of the lawsuit or the merits of the Kraft Group making their decision that the current indemnification agreement is not valid in this specific case," DeVellis said. "Our insurance counsel is in dialogue with the Kraft Group counsel.”

The town and the Kraft Group have used the same indemnification agreement for every Gillette Stadium concert since 2005, including the event where the Weldner/Dutton lawsuit originated from – last summer’s Bruce Springsteen concert.

The indemnification agreement for the Aug. 18, 2012 concert was agreed upon and signed by all members of Foxborough’s Board of Selectmen on June 12, 2012 and reads as follows:

“The licensee (Kraft Group) shall indemnify, defend and save the town and each of its officers, agents, servants and employees (collectively, the ‘Town Parties’) harmless from and against any and all claims, liabilities, liens, demands and causes of action (‘claims’) for or on account of any injury to persons, damage to property, fines, penalties, assessments, so-called civil rights claims or any other loss of whatever kind or nature arising out of the grant of the License or the conduct of the event(s), except to the extent such claim was caused by the negligence, gross negligence or willful misconduct of the town parties.

The town shall give the licensee prompt written notice of any such claim and licensee shall defend, or control the defense of, such claim by counsel of its choice, subject to the approval of the town in writing, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.

The licensee shall bear the entire cost of such defense except to the extent that it is finally determined by a court of law or other adjudicatory proceeding that such claim was caused by the negligence, gross negligence or willful misconduct of the town parties.”

While the Kraft Group, citing the negligence exception in the indemnification agreement, denied the town’s request to indemnify them in the Weldner/Dutton lawsuit, the company has offered to provide Foxborough with legal representation to defend the town and Chief O’Leary as well as cover costs of the attorney.

“For the plaintiffs in the Weldner/Dutton case to prevail, they have to prove that [Chief O’Leary] and the town acted negligently or worse,” said Kraft Group spokesman Jeff Cournoyer. “Our agreement with the town does not require us to indemnify the town in that scenario, but because we value our relationship with the town, we offered to defend them in the case.”

The Kraft Group’s offer will not cover damages owed if the town loses the case.

DeVellis declined comment on whether the town will accept the Kraft Group's offer, saying it would be inappropriate to publicly discuss "any legal strategy" but did offer this message to the community:

“The residents should know that our town is insured for lawsuits arising from stadium events through our general insurance provider and we have not missed a step regardless of the opinion of the Kraft Group that their indemnification insurance policy will not cover the current issue," DeVellis said. "The indemnification agreement that has been a standard policy in each and every stadium event for years is now being called into question because of a specific lawsuit. I cannot comment on any ongoing lawsuit as to merit or strategy but can tell you that our general insurance provider’s counsel is working with the Kraft Group’s counsel.”

The town has since presented the Kraft Group with a new indemnification agreement for three Gillette Stadium concerts this summer to include coverage of potential lawsuits similar to the Weldner/Dutton case in the future.

During the Jan. 15 public hearings for this summer's 10th annual New England Country Music Festival, Taylor Swift and Bon Jovi concerts, selectman Lorraine Brue read a new indemnification agreement into the record and the board voted to make the new indemnification policy a condition in the approval and issuing of the licenses for the three events.

According to the board's conditions of the approved licenses, the Kraft Group has until Feb. 15 to execute and provide the indemnification agreement.

Counsel for both the town and Kraft Group are said to be currently negotiating the terms of this new indemnification agreement.

The Weldner/Dutton class action lawsuit was originally filed on Sept. 24, 2012. Two additional concertgoers joined the lawsuit in November to challenge the town’s policy of holding people in protective custody during Gillette Stadium events.

According to the Law Offices of Howard Friedman, the suit alleges over a thousand people were held in protective custody unlawfully because they were intoxicated but not incapacitated. The suit seeks money damages for violations of the class members’ constitutional rights, as well as an end to the policy. The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court in Boston, is called Paul Weldner et al., v. Edward O’Leary, et al., C.A. No. 12-11771-DPW.

Bill Darcey January 30, 2013 at 06:12 PM
As Chairman DeVellis says there is no finding of negligence or "willful" misconduct. If the protective custody situation is judged improper it would most likely not be on that basis , but rather as a new interpretation of how to proceed with protective custody . I am not sure the town wants legal representation looking to protect a private entity with which we have had problems in the past .
Steve January 31, 2013 at 01:17 PM
“Cournoyer declined to answer questions about whether the Kraft Group supports the police department's protective custody policy and the way that policy is carried out by officers at stadium events.” Cournoyer is an attorney representing the stadium and this quote was taken from today’s Sun Chronicle. I guess, to me, this is the whole crux of the issue. Are the police details operating in a manner consistent with the KO wishes or are they operating “above and beyond” what the KO want them to do?? If the police are operating with clear consent from the KO then the town should be indemnified. If, however, the police are operating beyond what the KO feels is prudent then maybe the town should defend itself.
Jeremie Smith January 31, 2013 at 03:25 PM
@Steve: Thanks for the comment! Point of clarification: Cournoyer is a spokesman for the Kraft Group, not an attorney. To my understanding, the Kraft Group is saying it is not responsible for indemnification because of the type of lawsuit filed against the town. For the town to lose the case, the plaintiffs must prove negligence by the town and police detail. That type of lawsuit, according to the Kraft Group, nullifies the obligation to indemnify the town. See this quote: “For the plaintiffs in the Weldner/Dutton case to prevail, they have to prove that [Chief O’Leary] and the town acted negligently or worse,” said Kraft Group spokesman Jeff Cournoyer. “Our agreement with the town does not require us to indemnify the town in that scenario, but because we value our relationship with the town, we offered to defend them in the case.” I believe the issue called into question is the town's protective custody policy and whether or not police have gone "above and beyond" that policy in a negligent manner.
Steve January 31, 2013 at 08:17 PM
Jeremie, My mistake If Mr. Cournoyer is not an attorney but that does not change my point. The point I was trying to make, as I hurriedly typed away, was this; the police are operating by set of guidelines. Who sets these guidelines? The guidelines are set by A-the town (either by the town manager/BOS or the Chief of Police), B- the KO organization or C- a combination of the two. If these guidelines are set by B or C then the town should be indemnified. If the guidelines are set by A, the town, then it is a grey area to me. If it is A and the police are acting with the blessing of the KO then once again the town should be indemnified. If it A, the town, and the KO objects to certain aspects of the way the policing is being done then, in my opinion, the KO does have a reason to complain and maybe not indemnify the town. Did I explain my point a little better?
Jeremie Smith February 01, 2013 at 06:07 PM
Thank you for the follow-up Steve. I have a much clearer understanding of the point you were trying to make. These are good questions and I will look to include them in my follow-up reporting.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »