Exclusive: Is climate change in forced weather changing?

Talk to industry attorney Joshua Grimes about the state of force majeure clauses in a stormy environment – climate or otherwise.

In 2024, the United States experienced 27 confirmed droughts, floods, severe storms, wildfires and snowstorms, costing more than $1 billion per person. The number and severity of these events appear to be increasing. According to the National Center for Environmental Information (NCEI NOAA), the annual average of such weather-related disasters is nine events from 1980 to 2024, but when you pull the data from the last five years, that will increase to 23 events.

In total, weather and climate-related disasters have resulted in a total cost of nearly $3 trillion in total over the past 25 years, according to NCEI NOAA. While it is impossible to know the exact dollar value of cancelled meetings caused by these events, what we know is that it is time to look at the terms of your force force majeure to ensure that your organization can be protected if the weather event hits your landlord city.

Prevue asks industry lawyers Joshua L. Grimes, Grimes Law Law Corpes, that the increase in weather events could mean force majeure clauses for conference and event organizers.

Universal: The recent wildfires in the Los Angeles area, while not cancelled in downtown Los Angeles, also show that no matter how careful you plan your event, Mother Nature can always throw a curveball. Will these wildfires or other weather-related events fall under a force majeure clause?

grimes: This type of event should be force majeure. But people do need to look at their terms, because after Covid, the term “commercially unfeasible” has been eliminated, so these terms usually read that whatever happens, any situation must make the activity illegal or impossible to proceed.

In the case of a natural disaster or weather event, the event may make it commercially impractical, but it may not be illegal or impossible. So it differs in terms of cancellation.

I recommend everyone to look at it to see if it is appropriate to include the term “commercially impractical” in your “force majeure” clause. This is not only important for natural disasters. For example, if the medical meetings you hold depend on federal government participation or funding, then these meetings may not be impossible or impossible to happen – although it may be a government bill that cuts funds, which may be a trigger for force majeure, it may be impossible – without government participation.

prevue: How difficult is it to get the venue to allow that wording to become a clause in force majeure again?

grimes: This is all negotiable. If it’s important to a group, you shouldn’t book a meeting unless they agree.

General: As the political situation is now uncertain, some issues related to the conference have been reported, such as the loss of all spokespersons for the environmental justice program, as these spokespersons have lost their jobs in government or are no longer allowed to talk about certain topics. Will the “impossible or impractical” eroticism help if this happens to a group?

grimes: If your meetings under a contract depend on the participation of federal researchers or funded by a federal grant, this may be force majeure if you lose a spokesperson, so it is impossible or illegal to move forward. However, you may not necessarily need to cancel, depending on how much it affects your program. All you might want to do is see if you can reduce the room or some other expenses and other expenses from the vendor. In many cases, you should be able to resolve some kind of compromise.

If you have not signed a contract yet, consider whether to sign a standard meeting contract in the current uncertainty wisely. I will be very hesitant to book a health care industry or medical conference, depending on the participation of government affiliates without some flexibility.

Prevue: There were some concerns raised in the industry chat group that it could have an impact on the meeting if the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested hotel workers at the time of the meeting, or employees refused to go to work due to fear of a raid. Should that be force majeure?

grimes: Considering that hiring someone who is not eligible to work in the United States is already illegal, this may not be. This is one of the dichotomies of the world we live in. In this case, some hotels might say, “We can’t have full staff because the ice is coming, or our staff are worried that the ice will come out.” They might ask planners if they mind if it takes an extra 10 minutes to eat because they are in a tough position.

I think the best option is to negotiate a reasonable resolution that suits everyone. If the group loses government participants, or if the hotel staffing issues lead to reduced meeting experience and potential litigation in the group, it is always better to resolve the issue than to charge losses or penalties.

The default value should always be to try to prevent bad situations from getting worse.

You may also be interested in…

Exclusive: Nursing Obligations in Dangerous Worlds

Travel best practices when bad weather strikes

Requires avoidance of surcharge issues

Image of Drobotdean on Freepik