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
© 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 readTrending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
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