Even though a verdict was rendered earlier this month, the contentious Los Angeles Superior Court case between F.M. Rocks, Santa Monica, and bicoastal HSI Productions continues to generate a buzz within the production house community. And the buzz word is "indemnification."
As earlier reported (SHOOT, 5/21, p. 1), a jury ruled that HSI did not intentionally interfere with a contract between F.M. Rocks and director Paul Hunter. The decision thus dismissed plaintiff F.M. Rocks’ claim that it was due financial recompense and damages from defendant HSI. Sometime around May ’97, Hunter stopped directing music videos for F.M. Rocks and began working for HSI where he’s since helmed both clips and spots.
At press time, SHOOT was fielding queries from numerous production company executives regarding the trial. And the lion’s share of those phone calls centered on what people had heard via the industry grapevine about how indemnification figured-or didn’t figure-in the case. Both sides in the litigation addressed the issue.
Craig Fanning, president of F.M. Rocks, said he intends to appeal the Superior Court verdict. Among his contentions is that a judge’s decision prevented the jury from properly considering HSI’s indemnification of Hunter and how that allegedly induced the director to breach his contract with F.M. Rocks. Fanning claimed that HSI indemnified Hunter so that he would come over to the company.
However, HSI’s in-house legal counsel Randy Winograd said that wasn’t the case. He told SHOOT that it was well after Hunter decided to join HSI that the company agreed to indemnify him. Winograd noted that it wasn’t until the month following Hunter’s helming of a music video for HSI that the company considered providing indemnification. "The indemnity came when they [F.M. Rocks] threatened to sue him [Hunter]," said Winograd. "The idea behind the indemnity was simply that we didn’t think their lawsuit had any merit and we wanted Paul to focus on working."
Winograd contended that the judge properly instructed the jury regarding indemnification. The attorney added that the jury weighed all the relevant facts and clearly ruled that there was no intentional interference on HSI’s part with the contract in question.
Meanwhile, F.M. Rocks continues to maintain its arbitration case against Hunter. Fanning said he expects the arbitration process to move forward shortly.
