§ 502(b)(7) limited Beck’s claim arising from Johnson’s alleged breach of his personal guaranty. The court held that § 502(b)(7) did not apply “because the terminated employment relationship did not run between Johnson and Beck, and Johnson hence was not directly entitled to the protection of the statute.” Id. at 470. In reaching its conclusion, the court examined the nature of personal guaranties, and concluded that, as guarantor, Johnson would be hable for the full amount due under the contract notwithstanding any limitation on its allow-ability in the corporation’s case. See id. at 470-71. The court therefore held that § 502(b)(7) does not limit the claim of an employee against the guarantor of an employment contract. See also In re Danrik, Ltd., 92 B.R. 964, 972 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.1988) (<HOLDING>); Kopolow v. P.M. Holding Corp. (In re Modern
holding that comparable provision  502b6 does not literally apply to limit claims of landlord against guarantordebt or and that equities weigh against limiting claim holding that  502b6 does limit the claim of landlord against guarantordebtor holding that the rule does not apply to bar tort claims against service providers holding that the gtla does not apply to contract claims against governmental entities holding that the fraud claims against the defendant should not have been dismissed as the complaint provided him with fair notice of the claims made against her