See id. Johnson and the corporation thereafter filed for Chapter 11 protection, and Johnson initiated an adversary proceeding to determine whether § 502(b)(7) limited the allowability of Beck’s claims in his case. See id. The court first held that § 502(b)(7) did limit Beck’s claim against the corporation deriving from the corporation’s breach of the employment contract, but did not limit Beck’s claims against the corporation on his other theories of recovery. See id. at 468. The court then held that § 502(b)(7) did not limit any of Beck’s claims against Johnson. See id. at 469-71. With reference to Beck’s claim against Johnson deriving from Johnson’s alleged tortious interference with Beck’s employment relations, the court stated that “the whole tenor of § 502 Bankr.N.D.Ill.1992) (<HOLDING>); In re Interco Inc., 137 B.R. 1003, 1007
holding that  502b7 then called  502b8 does not limit claim of employee against guarantors of employment contract holding landlord was not liable because landlord had relinquished control despite landlords distribution of notices to residents telling them to keep their dogs tied or inside because evidence suggested that the reason for notice was that landlord had received complaints about barking and trash removal and not to protect others holding that  502b6 does limit the claim of landlord against guarantordebtor holding that tenant failed to establish that the landlord breached his duty because tenant offered no evidence that landlord failed to properly maintain second floor balcony or that the landlord was aware of tenants use of deck to move furniture into the second floor or that such a practice was common holding that comparable provision  502b6 does not literally apply to limit claims of landlord against guarantordebt or and that equities weigh against limiting claim