Bill of Health - silver pen resting on text reading "Force Majeure," unexpected event, pandemic

Contracts in the Age of COVID-19: A Look At Force Majeure Clauses

By Chris Zheng, J.D.

As businesses continue to confront the harsh economic realities of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, many are looking for legal solutions to cut costs and stay afloat. Even as consumer spending has increased over the past few months, evidence of recovery is mixed at best. As such, many businesses and consumers have been revisiting contracts to look for ways to free themselves from costly obligations. One major avenue of litigation is the invocation of Force Majeure clauses, which are provisions that excuse or delay contractual obligations due to the occurrence of an interrupting event. This post will provide an overview of how Force Majeure works and then examine COVID-19 as a triggering event as applied in recent cases. Finally, it will explore suggestions for how such clauses should be drafted in light of the ongoing pandemic.

Read More

CAVEAT HOSPITIA: Suits Alleging Negligent Credentialing Against Hospitals Get Exemption from Tort Reform

By Alex Stein

Policymakers and scholars interested in medical malpractice and torts generally should read Billeaudeau v. Opelousas General Hospital Authority, — So.3d —-, 2016 WL 6123862 (La. 2016). In this recent and important decision, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that suits alleging negligent credentialing against a hospital sound in regular negligence, rather than medical malpractice, and consequently fall outside the purview of the state’s Medical Malpractice Act (MMA) and its limitations on liability. The Court made this decision in connection with the state’s cap on damages recoverable in medical malpractice actions, La. Rev. Stat. § 40:1231.2(B)(1), which limits the total amount that courts can award the victim to $500,000, plus interest and cost, on top of the victim’s future expenditures on medical care and support. For many victims of medical malpractice and their families this cap amount is meager, but the Court nonetheless upheld its constitutionality back in 1992. See Butler v. Flint Goodrich Hosp., 607 So.2d 517 (La. 1992).

The Court has now decided that suits alleging negligent credentialing against hospitals are not subject to this cap and that successful plaintiffs consequently will recover full compensation for any proven damage. Read More