Prevue talks with industry attorney Joshua Grimes about the status of force majeure clauses in an environment full of stormy weather — climatological and otherwise.
In 2024, the U.S. experienced 27 confirmed droughts, floods, severe storms, wildfires and blizzards that cost more than $1 billion each. And the number and severity of these events appears to be rising. The annual average of these sorts of weather-related disasters was nine events from 1980-2024 — but when you pull out data from just the past five years, that rises to an annual average of 23 events, according to the National Centers for Environmental Information at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NCEI NOAA).
In all, weather and climate-related disasters over the past 25 years have resulted in a total cost of almost $3 trillion, according to NCEI NOAA. While the exact dollar value of canceled meetings that resulted from these events is impossible to know, what we do know is that it’s time to take another look at your force majeure clause to make sure it’s sufficient to protect your organization should a weather event hit your host city.
Prevue asked industry attorney Joshua L. Grimes, Grimes Law Offices, what increasing weather events could mean for meeting and event organizers’ force majeure clauses.
Prevue: The recent wildfires in the Los Angeles area, while they didn’t cause cancellations in downtown LA, were another indication that no matter how carefully you plan your event, mother nature can always throw a curveball. Would these wildfires, or other weather-related events, fall under a force majeure clause?
Grimes: This type of event should fall under force majeure. But people do need to take a look at their clauses, because after COVID, hotel-drafted clauses have done away with the words “commercially impracticable,” so the clauses typically now read that whatever happens has to have made it illegal or impossible to proceed with the event.
In the case of a natural disaster or weather event, that event could make it commercially impracticable to move forward, but it might not be illegal or impossible. So it makes a difference in terms of cancellation.
I would recommend that that everyone look and see if it’s appropriate to include the words the “commercially impracticable” in your force majeure clauses. This is not just important for natural disasters. For example, if you have a medical meeting that depends on participation or funding from the federal government, it’s probably not illegal or impossible for those meetings to happen — though it might be if a government act cuts off the funding, which could be a force majeure trigger in and of itself — but it might be commercially impracticable without that government participation.
Prevue: How difficult is it to get the venue to allow that wording back into force majeure clauses?
Grimes: it’s all negotiable. If it’s important to a group, then you shouldn’t then book the meeting unless they agree to it.
Prevue: With the political situation being so uncertain right now, there has been some meetings-related issues being reported, such as environmental justice programs that lost all their speakers because those speakers lost their jobs in the government or are no longer allowed to speak about certain topics. Would the “impossible or impracticable” verbiage help if that happens to a group?
Grimes: If you have a meeting already under contract that depends on participation of federal government researchers or is funded by federal government grants, it could be a force majeure if you lose your speakers, and as a result it’s impossible or illegal to continue. But you may not necessarily need to cancel, depending on the extent to which it would affect your program. What you may want to do is see if you can reduce your room block or some of your other expenses with your venue and vendors. In many cases you should be able to work out some sort of compromise.
If you’re not already under contract, consider whether it’s wise to proceed with a standard meeting contract in the current uncertainty. I would be very hesitant to book a healthcare industry or medical meeting now that depended on participation of government-affiliated people without some sort of flexibility.
Prevue: There has been some concern raised in industry chat groups about the possible effect on a meeting if the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests workers at a hotel while the meeting is happening, or if employees refuse to come into work because of fear of a raid. Should that fall under force majeure?
Grimes: Considering it’s already illegal to hire people who aren’t eligible to work in the United States, probably not. It’s one of the dichotomies of the world we live in. Some hotels might say in that situation, “We can’t have full staffing because ICE showed up, or our employees are concerned that ICE is going to show up.” They may ask the planner if they mind if it takes an extra 10 minutes to serve a meal since they’re in a tough spot.
I think the best option is for the planner and hotel to negotiate a reasonable resolution that works for everybody. It’s always better to work things out amicably rather than charge attrition or penalties if the group loses government attendees, or the hotel’s staffing issues lead to a diminution in the group’s meeting experience and potential litigation.
The default should always be to try and work it out where everybody gets and everybody gives, to keep a bad situation from getting any worse.
You May Also Be Interested In…
Exclusive: Duty of Care in a Dangerous World
Travel Best Practices When Severe Weather Strikes
Questions to Ask to Avoid Surcharge Surprises
Image by drobotdean on Freepik
