COVID-19 Outbreak: Time for a Business Health Checkup
Given the global economy and China's role as the world's manufacturing superpower, the outbreak of COVID-19, the disease associated with the novel coronavirus, poses a significant threat to businesses.
March 12, 2020 at 12:32 PM
7 minute read
The health of a business correlates with the health of its employees, suppliers and customers. Given the global economy and China's role as the world's manufacturing superpower, the outbreak of COVID-19, the disease associated with the novel coronavirus, poses a significant threat to businesses. While global efforts are focused on containing the spread of this new virus, businesses must prepare for the continued increasing, and evolving impacts on their operations. With many major financial impacts, both directly and indirectly, a longer lasting and more intensive outbreak has begun to, and will continue to, present a horde of legal concerns relating to domestic and international businesses. These concerns range from disturbances to the supply chain leading to potential contractual disputes to employment law concerns for commercial operations across all industries.
Businesses should address the following symptoms to mitigate issues relating to COVID-19:
|The Rise of Contractual Problems
Basic contract principles provide that businesses are to perform as required under the contract, including meeting deadlines, despite external factors impacting their performance, such as COVID-19, which make it more difficult for parties to perform their obligations. There are very few protections when contractual requirements are not met, limited to a number of circumstances, which include, but are not limited to, impossibility or impracticability of performance that is frustrated by an event that the parties could not have reasonably anticipated.
- Force Majeure Provisions
Another protection usually, but not always, provided in commercial contracts is a force majeure provision excusing a party from its performance obligations. A force majeure provision provides relief to a party from performance of the required obligations provided in a contract when circumstances, that are beyond the control of the parties, arise making performance impracticable, impossible, or even potentially illegal. When a contract lacks a force majeure provision, parties to a contract are left looking towards common law contract doctrines for shelter, but usually are left stranded, as those doctrines rarely excuse performance. Whether the force majeure provision will excuse a party from a contractual obligation is very fact specific, and will depend on the specificity of the provisions and the extent that the event at issue prevented performance. Whether a force majeure provision applies in this instance, involving the COVID-19 outbreak, depends on the extent to which the outbreak has made a party's performance impossible, instead of making it more difficult to perform, merely postponing it, or making it costlier. As force majeure provisions are generally narrowly interpreted, only applying to the specific events listed in the contract, businesses should review their contracts to determine if an epidemic or outbreak is a covered event.
- Indemnification Provisions
Similarly, an indemnification provision is another important contractual protection that should be considered by businesses, which allows a party to shift potential damages, attorneys fees and costs to the other party in the event of a failure to comply with the terms of a contract. These provisions are both generally heavily negotiated and litigated, as they are used in contracts where the risks are associated with a party's nonperformance. If there are no protections available under the contract, then by proactively seeking amendments or written extensions for performance, businesses could avoid a breach.
- Frustration of Purpose
In the event a contract does not include a force majeure or indemnification provision, the potential epidemic does not satisfy the threshold of the provision sufficient to trigger the included provision's effects, or a party's contracts cannot be amended to include these protections, the party seeking protection should consider the doctrine of frustration of purpose, although this should be a last ditch attempt at being awarded protection. Contracts are usually construed per their language as courts typically require parties to respect the negotiated terms. Prior to asserting frustration of purpose, businesses must take into account when their contracts were entered into. If a contract was entered after it could be reasonably anticipated that the spread of COVID-19 would become a pandemic, proving frustration of purpose sufficiently in order to obtain protection would be much more difficult.
- Operation Risks
Additionally, businesses should have a fully comprehensive business continuity plan (BCP) in place that is ready to be rolled out. A BCP can identify the potential threats to the business operations from the effects of a pandemic to supply chain disruptions. It also provides a way to mitigate these threats as well as their consequences, and entails having a framework in place which allows key functions of the business to continue. As part of such BCP, businesses should review their internal policies and procedures to combat potential issues relating to the COVID-19 outbreak as to their employees, and if no policies or procedures exist, then to create, establish, and implement such policies and procedures. Businesses must also make sure to educate their employees regarding the impacts of COVID-19, provide a sanitary workplace, and implement an organized BCP, in an attempt to limit, and ultimately prevent, exposure.
- Business Interruption Insurance Issues
Many businesses are protected by insurance policies which are designed to kick in when disaster strikes, allowing businesses to make up for lost revenue due to such disaster. Additionally, some businesses may possess protection from contingent business interruption insurance, which is an extension to other insurance that reimburses lost revenue resulting from an interruption of business of either a customer or a supplier. This current epidemic has severed many supply chains and disrupted business activity across the world. But after past viral epidemics, including SARS in 2003, Ebola in 2014 and Zika in 2015, insurance companies have added such epidemics as exclusions to their policies, which now require a direct physical loss or damage. The losses from the COVID-19 outbreak will probably be much larger, but less likely to be insured. Quarantines and travel bans can make it impossible for employees to do their jobs, but do not cause the physical damage to workplaces that is necessary to trigger successful business interruption claims. That means businesses will have to absorb much of the losses themselves, either directly or with money, if there is some set aside in a special self-insurance reserve. The COVID-19 outbreak may lead to extensive litigation regarding policy limits and exclusions. That is why it is prudent to review business interruption policies in order to best map out the potential impacts to counter the commercial threats posed by COVID-19.
- Evolving Viral Developments
Due to the fast evolving effects of COVID-19, businesses should carefully monitor the updates from the United States agencies and organizations, both locally and federally, as well as global health agencies and organizations. As the global situation is constantly updated, businesses should carefully review their potential legal exposure with counsel, and formulate the appropriate measures as proposed above.
As COVID-19-related disputes can be predicted, businesses should mitigate their risks by planning ahead per their BCP and by consulting with their counsel to proactively review the above symptoms to avoid disruption of operations, and to mitigate risks that can result in disputes with employees, suppliers, and customers.
Harsh Arora is a partner with Kelley Kronenberg, P.A., in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. He focuses his practice on business litigation and handling complex and international corporate transaction matters. He has represented multinational businesses as their outside general counsel. Contact him at [email protected].
Nicholas M. Fiorello is an attorney at the firm. He also focuses his practice on business litigation and handling corporate transaction matters. Contact him at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1How to Support Law Firm Profitability: Train Partners Up
- 2Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 3Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 4Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 5X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250