Client Alerts & Insights
Force Majeure Claims – Contract Provisions, Notices, and Ordinary Business Risk
November 4, 2024
Authored By:
Force majeure contract provisions and force majeure notices have been top of mind more times in recent memory than we care to count. The recent short-lived port strike, two devastating hurricanes, and the Francis Scott Key Bridge impact in Baltimore are just recent examples in a five-year list that includes two wars and a global pandemic. These dramatic unforeseen events cause transportation and logistics providers, as well as their shippers, to closely examine contract terms and the language of notices while scrambling to determine how to continue business uninterrupted.
The true meaning of force majeure sometimes goes missing in those stressful circumstances. Force majeure is essentially a defense to performing as a service provider otherwise committed to do. This means that it saves the service provider from claims of contract breach and resulting damages. It does not, however, mean that failure to perform may continue indefinitely or that it is excused for mere business inconvenience or increased cost.
Force Majeure Events – Most transportation contracts today contain force majeure provisions. The typical structure includes trigger language and also process language. For example, non-performance may be excused by a negotiated list of events such as acts of God, fire, riots, wars, and strikes. Also, the process of what must be done is often expressed such as requiring notice within three days of the force majeure event and possibly allowing the other party to terminate if performance does not commence within a certain number of days. If the circumstances that prohibited performance end then performance must commence without delay.
Ordinary Business Risk – The force majeure event must physically or legally prohibit performance of services in order to be effective. Increased cost of service is insufficient even if it means losing money on a load. Intangible contract requirements are also not excused from performance such as maintenance of insurance or providing defense and indemnity.
Assessing Force Majeure in Real Time – The top six questions when considering possible force majeure circumstances are: (1) What are the triggering events; (2) Are those events happening; (3) Do those in fact prevent performance; (4) Is performance required despite the events; (5) What steps must be taken to claim force majeure; and (5) How long does force majeure last?
Force majeure is not a free-for-all. This is key. It is a concept intended to be fair and equitable by recognizing that unforeseen events can happen, and when they do, parties are best served by communicating with one another under a basic set of ground rules.
Jonathan Todd is Vice Chair of the Transportation & Logistics Practice Group at Benesch Law. He may be reached at 216.363.4658 or jtodd@beneschlaw.com.
Latest News
D.C. Circuit Rejects DOE’s Use of Emergency Authority to Prevent Coal Plant Retirement
The D.C. Circuit vacated the Department of Energy’s order compelling continued operation of Michigan’s J.H. Campbell coal plant under DOE’s emergency authority, finding that Section 202(c) is a narrow, last-resort power reserved for immediate grid-reliability emergencies, not longer-term resource planning.
New BIS “Affiliates Rule” Compliance Date is November 10 Unless Suspended by U.S.-China Truce
A new party screening requirement will soon impact compliance of international dealings unless the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Securities (“BIS”) issues a second extension of its effective date.
California’s New AI Law: What Legal Departments and Outside Counsel Need to Know
Newly enacted California Senate Bill 574 regulates how attorneys use generative AI by amending the California Code of Civil Procedure and requiring attorneys to personally verify every citation, whether sourced from AI or otherwise. It also holds law firms jointly responsible for sanctionable violations by their attorneys. The bill added a new section to the California Code of Civil Procedure (§ 1282.1), barring arbitrators from delegating their decision-making to generative AI.
Beyond Allulose: What Comes Next in Sugar-Related False Advertising Litigation?
The Franco decision has given plaintiffs a potential roadmap for challenging “Sugar Free,” “Zero Sugar” and similar claims when FDA guidance and existing regulations do not fully align.