What does an owner commit to at Home Instead?
Home Instead gives an owner a territory of 10,000 residents aged 65 and over. That is lower than most among home care systems.
Across 17 home care systems
How big are other systems' territories, next to Home Instead's? →
How long you are in, and what leaving looks like
A standard Home Instead territory holds 10,000 residents aged 65 and over.
Standard territory size, across the systems measuring it the same way
Every system here sizes on residents aged 65 and over.
3 systems between the highest and lowest are not drawn here. The full field is in the data table below.
›View data & method
| System | Residents aged 65+ |
|---|---|
| A Place At Home | about 40,000 |
| Amada Senior Care | 32,000–42,000 |
| Assisting Hands Home Care | at least 25,000 |
| BrightStar Care | at least 15,000 |
| CareBuilders at Home | 30,000–40,000 |
| ComForCare | 25,000–35,000 |
| FirstLight Home Care | about 25,000 |
| Griswold | 25,000 |
| Home Instead | 10,000 |
| HomeCare Advocacy Network | 30,000–50,000 |
| Homewatch CareGivers | 38,000–40,000 |
| HomeWell Care Services | 30,000–40,000 |
| Nurse Next Door | about 9,000 |
| One You Love Homecare | about 50,000 |
| Right at Home | at least 15,000 |
| Senior Helpers | 25,000–35,000 |
| SYNERGY HomeCare | about 20,000 |
Only systems that state a 65-and-over population are drawn: a system sizing on the whole population has measured something different, and the two are never ranked against each other. Where a filing says “at least” a number, the qualifier travels with the value.
No exclusive territory: Territory is not exclusive
10,000 people 65+p. 45 ↗
What an owner has to hit, and what happens if they miss
What an owner may not do
Home Instead’s filing discloses 8 proceedings.
That is 1.3 per 100 locations, against 1.3 per 100 locations across the whole field. A count of proceedings mostly measures how large and how old a system is, which is why it is shown as a rate and never as a score.
- 2025 · dismissed · 8:25-cv-00654
Breach of the March 2024 Settlement Agreement and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; plaintiffs assert the Settlement Agreement grants them the right to renew their franchise agreements prior to expiration of existing terms and that Home Instead improperly failed to permit early renewals.p. 16 ↗
- 2025 · pending · 2:25-cv-13746
Substantially similar allegations to the Nebraska Lawsuit: breach of the March 2024 Settlement Agreement and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing regarding early renewal rights.p. 16 ↗
- 2025 · pending · 5:25-cv-03149
Substantially similar allegations to the Nebraska Lawsuit: breach of the March 2024 Settlement Agreement and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing regarding early renewal rights.p. 16 ↗
5 earlier proceedings
- 2025 · pending · 25CUB01090
Alleges Home Instead made certain representations in connection with the sale and operation of the franchise, failed to provide contractual support, and improperly exercised certain rights under the franchise agreement; asserts claims under California statutory and common law seeking rescission, damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and costs.p. 16 ↗
- 2023 · settled · 8:23cv00431
Claims for violation of the Lanham Act and misappropriation of trade secrets and to enforce post-termination non-competition provisions after Elderly Care failed to renew its franchise and continued operating past expiration. Elderly Care asserted counterclaims and claims against Home Instead's CEO alleging breach of franchise agreement and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.p. 17 ↗
- 2023 · settled · 8:23cv00424
Claims for violation of the Lanham Act and misappropriation of trade secrets and to enforce post-termination non-competition provisions after Head failed to renew its franchise and continued operating past expiration. Related action filed by Head in W.D. Virginia (Case No. 6:23CV00067) alleging violation of Virginia Retail Franchising Act, breach of franchise agreement, and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.p. 17 ↗
- 2014 · 1:14cv01894
EPI asserted claims for declaratory relief, breach of contract, and violations of the Indiana Deceptive Franchise Practices Act after Home Instead terminated EPI's Franchise Agreement for trademark misuse and violation of non-competition and non-disclosure covenants. Home Instead counterclaimed for violation of covenants, trademark infringement, and unfair competition/deceptive trade practices. On March 24, 2017, the court granted and denied cross motions for summary judgment in part.p. 18 ↗
- decided by a court · 25-00754
Franchisor-initiated suit to enforce covenant not to compete.p. 17 ↗
How to read these terms
- Contract language does not summarize. Where a filing states a term in words, those words are what we publish, with the page they are on. Only the handful of terms that are genuinely numbers get compared with other systems.
- A territory is only comparable to one measured the same way. Some systems size on residents aged 65 and over, some on the whole population. We keep those apart and never rank one against the other.
- Disclosed cases are not a score. A count of proceedings mostly measures how big and how old a system is. We publish what each filing discloses, in its own words, with a rate per hundred locations so the count is not mistaken for a verdict.
›The numbers behind this page
What the agreement says about the minimums
- Hours you must bill: “(2) The “Minimum Client Hours Served Requirement” which is set forth in the table below (the “Table”). The minimum monthly “Client Hours Served” that Franchisee must satisfy in order to meet the Minimum Client Hours Served Requirement is based on the “Franchise Age” (as defined below) and the population of older adults in the Protected Area.”
- Sales you must reach: “The monthly Minimum Gross Sales Requirement is the product of the Average Client Price (as defined herein) multiplied by the applicable Client Hours Served.”
The proceedings, as the filing describes them
- “the court held that the plaintiffs' claims were not supported by the plain and unambiguous language of the Settlement Agreement”
- “The California and Michigan Lawsuits involve substantially similar allegations and remain pending.”
- “The California and Michigan Lawsuits involve substantially similar allegations and remain pending.”
- “In its answer, Home Instead, Inc. denies the material allegations of the complaint. The matter is pending.”
- “a stipulated order of permanent injunction was entered against Elderly Care enforcing certain post-term covenants as stated in the order, including that Elderly Care debranded”
- “a stipulated judgment was entered in our favor on all of our claims and included an award of monetary damages”
- “Home Instead, Inc. was awarded damages in the amount of $500,000, which amount would be satisfied upon EPI's transfer of certain rights under an "Assignment Agreement"”
- “The Court entered the stipulated permanent injunction against a former franchisee on December 23, 2025.”
What this filing does not disclose
- Nothing material to this question is missing from this filing.
Every term on this page is read from Home Instead’s own 2026 disclosure document, and the wording is the filing’s rather than ours. Territory sizes are compared only with systems measuring on the same basis. Disclosed proceedings are shown as the filing describes them, with their status where the filing states one. Source ↗
Once a month: what moved in the filings, which systems changed their agreements, and what it means for owners.