Are COVID-19 Liability Waivers Good Business?
A business may have valid concerns that an employee or customer could contract the virus while on the premises, and sue. In an effort to avoid costly litigation, some businesses are requiring workers and customers to sign a liability waiver or release.
July 21, 2020 at 09:00 AM
5 minute read
The COVID-19 pandemic has taken all of us into uncharted waters. After the unprecedented near nationwide shutdown, businesses are in various stages of reopening. The ability to reopen is often necessary for the very survival of a business. At the same time, a business may have valid concerns that an employee or customer could contract the virus while on the premises, and sue. In an effort to avoid costly litigation, some businesses are requiring workers and customers to sign a liability waiver or release.
Are Waivers the New Normal?
Just as social distancing and wearing a mask in public are now more mainstream, signing a liability waiver or explicitly acknowledging the associated risks before returning to work or entering a business may also become commonplace.
In mid-July, Walt Disney World Resort begins a phased reopening of its theme parks. Its webpage currently warns: "By visiting … you voluntarily assume all risks related to exposure to COVID-19 … an extremely contagious disease that can lead to severe illness and death."
Similarly, to register for the Trump campaign's recent Make America Great Again rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, registrants had to click through a disclaimer, which stated in part: "By clicking register below, you are acknowledging that an inherent risk of exposure to COVID-19 exists in any public place where people are present … By attending the rally, you and any guests voluntarily assume all risks related to exposure to COVID-19 and agree not to hold Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. … liable for any illness or injury."
Even The New York Stock Exchange and some NCAA college football teams are requiring waivers, with the NYSE compelling traders to sign them before entering the trading floor, and the football programs making them a condition of participation.
For organizations that already suffered significant economic loss during the shutdown, the prospect of litigation may be enough to implement use of a liability waiver. For others, merely deterring frivolous claims may make waivers a good business decision. Yet some may find that such releases are not worth the trouble.
Legal Background
Typically, workers are covered under workers' compensation—and cannot sue their employer—if they are injured or become ill on the job, but questions remain unanswered regarding COVID-19 coverage. Generally, in order to qualify for workers' compensation benefits, a worker need not prove that the employer did anything wrong, only that the injury or illness is job-related. Illnesses like the cold or flu, however, are not usually covered under Florida's workers' compensation laws, because they are seen as a hazard of daily living. Though the Florida Department of Financial Services (DFS) has issued a directive to honor COVID -19 claims made by frontline state employees (such as police officers, first responders and state healthcare employees), this directive has not been categorically extended to all employees.
Customers meanwhile have long been able to pursue personal injury lawsuits based on the concept of premises liability if they were injured or became ill as a result of a business's negligence.
Does a Liability Waiver Really Work?
It depends.
The basic idea behind a liability waiver in the context of the pandemic is to protect a business from liability for damages if someone contracts the virus while working or visiting the business. In legal terms, this is accomplished by asking the person executing the waiver to "assume the risk" of contracting the virus at the business.
A waiver that requires an employee to waive the right to workers' compensation or unemployment benefits is unenforceable.
As for customers, liability waivers have historically been disfavored by Florida courts and limited in three important ways. First, only known risks can be assumed by the person signing the waiver—the waiver must clearly and specifically state the risks. Second, the waiver must be freely and voluntarily given, as opposed to a "take it or leave it" scenario, which is often the case due to the unequal bargaining positions between businesses and its customers or workers. Finally, courts will generally not enforce waivers that seek to protect a business from its own gross negligence or intentional acts. In other words, a business that purposefully or flagrantly ignores all governmental guidance on COVID-19 would likely not be able to seek shelter under a release.
Should I Require a Waiver for My Business?
If you are a business owner concerned about coronavirus-related liability, a carefully drafted waiver may provide some protection. However, to help ensure enforceability, you should consult an experienced business law attorney. The document and its implementation need to be uniquely tailored both to your business and to the ever-changing laws and guidance related to COVID-19.
Business owners should also carefully weigh the potential, nonlegal impacts of waivers, including on P.R. and company culture. Such risks may outweigh potential rewards.
Attorney Jeffrey Lieser is a founder of Lieser Skaff Alexander in Tampa.
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
© 2025 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 AllLeveraging the Power of Local Chambers of Commerce: A Second-Career Lawyer’s Guide to Building a Thriving Practice
5 minute readCFPB Proposes Rule to Regulate Data Brokers Selling Sensitive Information
5 minute readEssential Labor Shifts: Navigating Noncompetes, Workplace Politics and the AI Revolution
Trending Stories
- 1'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 2Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 3‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 4State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
- 5Invoking Trump, AG Bonta Reminds Lawyers of Duties to Noncitizens in Plea Dealing
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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