Force Majeure May Be Invoked on Cargo

Compliance Alert

Rumors are circulating in the global shipping community about the invocation of force majeure. Although it is rarely used, force majeure can cause serious disruption in the supply chain. Worse yet, it can add a considerable expense to the consignee.

In broad terms, force majeure refers to unforeseeable circumstances that prevents someone from fulfilling a contract. In the shipping industry, force majeure is a clause in the bill of lading contract that is designed to, in part or in whole, absolve a party from liability for failing to fulfill their obligations because of extraordinary events and circumstances. Force majeure does not excuse a party for failure to perform under normal conditions and can only be deployed for specific, named conditions within the contract.

For example, when Hurricane Sandy struck the east coast, several terminals were unable to accept vessels and cargo due to damage caused by the storm. Citing the hurricane as an “Act of God”, steamship lines declared force majeure and discharged the cargo at different ports. “Acts of God” refer to unavoidable and catastrophic weather conditions and is a standard named condition under the force majeure clause.

It is crucial that the consignee, importer, and exporter understand which situations are specifically named within the force majeure clause of a contract. For instance, COVID-19 is a pandemic. If a pandemic is not specifically mentioned in the force majeure clause of a contract, it would be left up to the courts to determine if it can be applied to the contract.

If force majeure is declared on a shipment, the consignee would most likely be responsible for any additional charges to get the cargo from the port of involuntary discharge to the original named destination. Among other things, these fees can include terminal charges, demurrage, storage, drayage, and additional shipping costs. As you can imagine, this can become expensive very quickly.

However, there is an alternative to help protect businesses from these additional expenses – cargo insurance.

While force majeure may not be specifically named in the policy, additional freight charges for the purpose of completing delivery as well as potentially other associated costs may be paid by cargo insurers. Your cargo insurance policy generally has terms and conditions to cover costs relating to minimizing loss or damage and ensuring cargo arrives safely to its intended destination.

Right now is a great time to contact your insurance provider with questions about your specific coverage. The more familiar you are with the terms of your insurance, the better prepared you can be for potential disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

At TLR, our team of professionals are constantly working with our vast network of experts to stay current on industry news, which allows us the ability to stay on top of trends and projections. Please feel free to contact us with any questions at BD@shiptlr.com.

Table of Contents

Heather Kiesel

News & Updates

Related Posts

Client alert graphic about new CBP vetting requirements for foreign Importers of Record, featuring customs, shipping, air freight, and compliance imagery.

Client Alert: Foreign Importers of Record – New CBP Vetting Requirements Are Coming

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has provided additional information regarding implementation of Executive Order 14411, “Strengthening Customs Enforcement,” signed June 3, 2026. The Executive Order directs significant changes to the requirements for Importers of Record (IORs), including heightened requirements for foreign IORs. TLR is a CTPAT-validated customs broker (CVCB) and is preparing for these changes. Foreign IOR clients should begin preparing as well. What Is Changing for Foreign IORs? Under Executive Order 14411, foreign IORs making formal entry into the United States will be required to either: CBP is now providing additional insight into

Read More »
Graphic for the BIS and DDTC transfer of certain firearm suppressors from ITAR to the EAR, featuring a suppressor, cargo ship, port crane, and U.S. government building.

Client Alert : BIS and DDTC Transfer Certain Firearm Suppressors from ITAR to the EAR

On July 23, 2026, the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Department of Commerce published complementary Interim Final Rules that significantly change the export controls applicable to certain firearm suppressors, also referred to as silencers or mufflers. Effective November 20, 2026, many suppressors currently controlled under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations will instead be controlled under the Export Administration Regulations. The changes are intended to reduce regulatory burdens while maintaining export controls through the Commerce Control List. What Is Changing? Certain Suppressors Move From ITAR to the EAR The Department of State is

Read More »
Logistics icons with the text IEEPA Tariff Refund Update: CIT Hearing Provides New Details on CAPE Expansion

IEEPA Tariff Refund Update: CIT Hearing Provides New Details on CAPE Expansion

The Court of International Trade (CIT) held another hearing on June 9, 2026, regarding the ongoing IEEPA tariff refund process. The hearing followed the court’s prior order requiring the government to explain why the CIT should not lift the stay of its earlier orders directing refunds of unlawfully collected IEEPA duties. While the court did not lift the stay at the hearing, the proceedings provided important updates regarding U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) refund processing efforts and the next planned phases of the CAPE refund system. CBP Continues to Process Refunds Through CAPE CBP

Read More »
Image of logistics icons for IEEPA Tariff related update

IEEPA Tariff Refund Update: Government Signals Appeal of Refund Order

Recent developments in the ongoing IEEPA tariff refund litigation may significantly impact how importers pursue recovery of tariffs collected under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). On May 29, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a motion in the Court of International Trade (CIT) that provided important insight into the government’s position regarding future IEEPA tariff refunds. While the motion itself sought to prevent CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott from testifying before the court, the filing also clarified the government’s intended approach to refunds and confirmed its plan to appeal portions of the

Read More »