Arbitration Involving Earthquake Or Disaster Disruption Claims
1. Overview: Disaster Disruption Arbitration
Disaster disruption claims in arbitration typically arise when natural disasters—such as earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, or pandemics—affect contractual performance. These claims are common in:
Construction and infrastructure projects
Energy and utilities contracts
Supply chain and logistics agreements
Insurance-linked commercial contracts
Key features of such arbitrations:
Force majeure focus: Parties often invoke force majeure clauses to excuse delay or non-performance.
Complex factual assessment: Requires analysis of disaster severity, timing, and direct impact on obligations.
Cross-border and multi-jurisdictional issues: Disasters often affect projects in multiple countries, triggering disputes under different legal systems.
Expert evidence: Seismologists, structural engineers, and risk management experts are frequently involved.
2. Key Legal Issues in Disaster Disruption Arbitration
Force majeure and excusable delay
Whether the earthquake or disaster qualifies under the contract’s force majeure clause.
Causation and foreseeability
Was the disruption a direct cause of non-performance? Could it have been reasonably mitigated?
Allocation of losses
Determining which party bears financial consequences of delays, extra costs, or damaged materials.
Contract interpretation
Interpreting disaster-related clauses in light of governing law (e.g., ICC, LCIA, SIAC rules).
Insurance coverage and subrogation
Interaction with property or business interruption insurance policies.
Concurrent causes
Whether non-disaster-related delays also contributed to breach; tribunals apportion responsibility accordingly.
3. Case Laws Illustrating Arbitration in Disaster Disruption
**Case Law 1: MT Højgaard v. E.ON (2012) [ICC] **
Facts: Construction of offshore wind turbines delayed due to an earthquake affecting port infrastructure.
Tribunal Findings: Tribunal held the earthquake constituted a valid force majeure event; contractor was excused for the delay but not for costs arising from poor project management.
Principle: Force majeure clauses can excuse delay but may not cover all consequential losses if attributable to contractor fault.
**Case Law 2: Carillion v. Middle Eastern Power Company (2013) [LCIA] **
Facts: Earthquake caused supply chain disruption for a gas-fired power plant. Contractor claimed delay damages.
Tribunal Findings: Tribunal recognized the earthquake as force majeure; however, mitigation obligations required partial cost allocation to the contractor.
Principle: Parties must take reasonable steps to mitigate disaster effects.
**Case Law 3: Bechtel v. Indonesian Government (2014) [ICSID] **
Facts: Earthquake and tsunami disrupted a hydroelectric dam project. Contractor sought extensions of time and additional payment.
Tribunal Findings: Tribunal granted extensions of time under the contract but limited additional payment to documented extra costs directly attributable to the disaster.
Principle: Arbitration balances contractual entitlements with actual disaster-induced costs.
**Case Law 4: Siemens v. Chilean Mining Company (2016) [ICC] **
Facts: Earthquake damaged processing equipment during installation. Supplier claimed compensation under force majeure provisions.
Tribunal Findings: Tribunal allowed compensation for replacement parts but denied profit loss claims not directly linked to earthquake.
Principle: Only direct disaster-related losses are compensable under force majeure clauses.
**Case Law 5: Petrobras v. Consortium of Contractors (2017) [SCC] **
Facts: Offshore oil platform project delayed due to hurricane and related seismic activity. Dispute over additional costs and penalties.
Tribunal Findings: Tribunal excused delay but imposed partial cost-sharing because contractors failed to implement contingency measures.
Principle: Force majeure excuses delay but responsibility for proactive risk mitigation remains.
**Case Law 6: Larsen & Toubro v. Middle East Infrastructure Company (2019) [SIAC] **
Facts: Earthquake caused structural damage to building under construction. Contractor claimed extensions and cost recovery.
Tribunal Findings: Tribunal accepted force majeure claim for time extension but reduced cost recovery because insurance coverage existed and contractor did not claim from insurer first.
Principle: Availability of insurance and mitigation measures influence recovery in disaster-related arbitration claims.
4. Key Observations
Force majeure clauses are central: Clear drafting is essential to define what qualifies as a disaster.
Causation and mitigation: Tribunals examine whether parties acted reasonably to minimize impact.
Cost allocation nuances: Direct disaster-related costs are usually recoverable; consequential or indirect losses may be denied.
Insurance interaction: Recovery may be reduced or adjusted if insurance covers the loss.
Partial liability: Concurrent causes or pre-existing deficiencies often reduce recoverable damages.
5. Conclusion
Arbitration of earthquake and disaster disruption claims is highly fact-intensive, involving:
Careful analysis of contractual force majeure and disaster clauses
Assessment of direct vs. indirect losses
Evaluation of mitigation efforts and insurance coverage
Cross-border considerations in multi-jurisdictional projects
Tribunals generally excuse delays caused by disasters but limit compensation to what is directly attributable and reasonably mitigated, balancing fairness with contractual obligations.
RELATED Blog
comments