We can conclude that this is an act directly and entirely attributable to natural causes without human intervention, and that it could not have been avoided by any foresight, pain or care reasonably expected of him, .dem that is, of the accused. Generally, all property, vehicle, and life insurance policies offer force majeure coverage, which means insurers reimburse your losses due to natural disasters. For example, in property insurance, the insurer covers damage caused by a fire caused by lightning, but denies a claim if the fire is started due to the negligence of the insured and his family. In April this year, the Mumbai High Court did not accept the force majeure argument in a case where the applicant argued that Covid-19 lockdowns had thwarted a steel supply contract. While the decision considered other arguments, the vague interpretation of the pandemic justification was not court-related. In contract law, force majeure can be interpreted as an implied defense under the principle of impossibility or impracticability. If this is the case, the promise will be kept due to unforeseen events that were inevitable and would result in insurmountable delays, costs or other material violations. The force majeure defence, which protects a defendant from liability for damage to persons or property caused by a natural disaster, is rarely used today. Nevertheless, if predictions of catastrophic weather events caused by global warming materialize, they could become widespread. One prediction on global warming is that extreme weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and torrential rains will occur more frequently.

All of this has the potential to harm people, significantly damage property, and cause emotional stress. The defence of “force majeure” is based on the tort law principle that liability must be based on fault – and that a person cannot be punished if the actual fault is that of a “vis major” – or a “force majeure” – if every precaution has been taken and an accident has occurred. In any situation, determining whether a particular condition or event constitutes force majeure is a fact, the criterion being that no human foresight or wisdom could rationally discern the likelihood of such an event. Courts have tended to limit the use of the force majeure defence, not because its usefulness has diminished in cases of absolute liability, but because of advances in scientific understanding that have limited contingencies. The extent of this defense is now extremely limited, because as foresight grows as knowledge increases, it is expected that the potential of the event could have been visualized. In all uses of the English language, force majeure[2] is a natural hazard beyond human control, such as an earthquake or tsunami, for which no one can be held responsible. Force majeure may constitute an exception to liability in contracts (as under the Hague-Visby Rules)[3] or an “insured risk” in an insurance policy. [4] Singapore enacted the Covid-19 (Temporary Measures) Act in April to provide relief to businesses that were unable to meet their contractual obligations due to the pandemic.

“However, as in the case of the Uttarakhand tragedy, it is advisable to protect yourself against all risks of force majeure, as extreme weather events can occur anywhere,” Datta said. The Supreme Court has also recognized force majeure and force majeure as valid defences, albeit with some reservations. In Inacia P Carvalho vs Desk To Desk Courier and Cargo Limited, the Supreme Court ruled that force majeure and force majeure do not cover all cases to cover lack of service and negligence. Contracting parties are expected to demonstrate professionalism in the performance of contractual obligations, and these defences are unacceptable in cases of negligent lack of professionalism. In addition, a number of judgments stipulate that contracts must contain sufficient provisions on the liability of a party who seeks to exonerate himself from obligations invoking force majeure or force majeure. In other contracts, such as compensation, force majeure may not be an excuse, but the central risk assumed by the promisor – such as flood insurance or crop insurance – the only variables being the timing and extent of the damage. In many cases, not ignoring the obvious risks due to “natural phenomena” will not be sufficient to excuse the fulfilment of the obligation, even if the events are relatively rare, such as the year 2000 problem with computers. According to the Uniform Commercial Code, 2-615, the non-delivery of the goods sold can be excused by a “case of force majeure” if the absence of such an act was a “basic assumption” of the contract and the act made the delivery “economically impracticable”. The definition of force majeure varies from one insurer to another. According to Sanjay Datta, Head of Underwriting, Claims and Reinsurance, ICICI Lombard General Insurance, a force majeure event is a natural disaster that includes a number of hazards such as cyclones or earthquakes.