Carve-outs to a limitation of liability clause can lead to a limitation of liability clause being ineffective. It is important to understand the impact of each individual carve out on the limit of liability.
In this article, we will explain the different types of carve-outs that are often used in a limitation of liability clause. We also highlight how they can impact the effectiveness of a limit of liability.
Author: Farrah Motley, Director of Prosper Law and a commercial contracts lawyer.
A carve-out is simply an exclusion to a limitation of liability clause. They are the events or types of loss that parties to a contract agree to exclude from the limit of liability. They may be written so that each carve-out has its own limit of liability or there will be no limit of liability that applies to that carve-out.
A limitation of liability carve-out for loss arising from personal injury or death is fairly common.
If a party to a contract is supplying goods and/or services that have a low risk of causing personal injury or death, this carve-out may be appropriate.
However, consider a party that is supplying goods and/or services where there is a possibility that personal injury or death could result. In that case, it is important to consider whether a carve-out for personal injury and death should be deleted from the limit of liability.
This may be the case, for example, where a business supplies extreme sports experiences.
A carve-out for property damage is also a common exclusion from a limitation of liability clause.
It is important to understand that the concept of property damage is very broad. The carve out should bei specific about what kinds of property damage the carve-out applies to. Otherwise, a business may unintentionally agree to an exclusion that the other party can exploit to overcome the limitation of liability clause.
For instance, an engineering company agrees to a limitation of liability of $10 million. The limit includes a carve-out for property damage. If the engineering services relate to property (for example, a bridge, a building, or equipment), and the engineering firm is negligent, the kind of damage that is likely to result in property damage.
This means that the limitation of liability, even though it might be written so that it applies to negligence, may be avoided by the other party. That party can simply claim that property damage has occurred and therefore the limit of $10 million does not apply.
Sometimes, limits of liability are written as a multiplier of the fee paid, or a set amount that is low, but with a carve-out for insurance proceeds. A carve-out for insurance proceeds may be written so that the carve-out applies to amounts that are:
under a policy of insurance held by the supplier.
There is a difference between the terms ‘recovered’ and ‘recoverable’. If an amount is recovered, it means that the insurer has actually paid out an amount and the supplier does not have to pay the amount, then seek reimbursement from the insurer.
On the other hand, recoverable means that the supplier has the right to be reimbursed by its insurer, but it may not have actually been reimbursed.
It is important to remember that a policy of professional indemnity policy responds to the liability of an insured. That is, insurance comes after liability, rather than insurance informing a party’s liability.
Because insurance follows liability and not the other way around, it is possible that a limit of liability that has a carve-out for insurance proceeds still means that the amount set as the limit will apply to that carve-out. This is because the monetary limit of liability represents the insured’s total legal liability under the contract. On the other hand, a policy of professional indemnity insurance will not provide reimbursement for amounts that extend beyond an insured’s legal liability.
You can read more about the concept that insurance follows liability here.
Just like the carve-out explained above in relation to insurance proceeds, a carve-out for amounts recovered or recoverable from third parties is also fairly common.
However, this limitation of liability exclusion also has broad potential to water down a limitation of liability and render it ineffective.
The party whose liability is limited may have a right to seek recovery from a third party (for example, an overseas supplier or a subcontractor), however:
Loss arising from infringement of intellectual property rights is not usually covered by insurance policies. Nevertheless, it is common for limitation of liability clauses to exclude loss arising out of the infringement of intellectual property rights.
It is, however, important to ask the question. Which party has infringed intellectual property rights? Consider whether the carve-out is worded such that the party seeking to avoid the limit of liability may be the one infringing on intellectual property rights. If there are broad indemnities for infringement of intellectual property rights, the party seeking to apply to limit of liability may face uninsured liability for the loss they did not cause.
An example of this is where:
Exclusion of loss caused by a breach of confidentiality is a common and reasonable exclusion from a limitation of liability clause.
Because it is within each party’s control not to disclose or share confidential information, liability for breach of confidentiality is often uncapped.
It is firmly within a party’s power to avoid engaging in fraud or deliberating breaching the contract. Exclusion of loss arising from fraud, willful misconduct, or deliberate breach is fair and reasonable. This is because of the level of control a party has in avoiding and preventing this behaviour.
Unless the terms ‘reckless disregard’ and ‘gross negligence’ are specifically defined within the contract, exclusions for these types of default may significantly water down the effectiveness of a limit of liability clause.
Because the terms ‘reckless disregard’ and ‘gross negligence’ have no set legal definition, it is possible that they may inadvertently apply to matters that the limit of liability was supposed to cover.
For instance:
None of these questions have been specifically answered by Australian courts. And because of that, it is open to the party seeking to avoid the application of the limit of liability to use these terms to circumvent the limit.
Prosper Law is Australia’s online commercial law firm. We have unparalleled experience in drafting, reviewing and negotiating limitation of liability clauses. We will ensure that any exclusions from the limit are appropriate to the particular business transaction.
Contact us today for a free, fixed-fee quote for legal advice.
Farrah Motley | Director
PROSPER LAW – Australia’s Online Law Firm
M: 1300 003 077
A: Suite No. 99, Level 18, 324 Queen Street, Brisbane, Queensland Australia 4000
We provide legal advice to business and individuals across Australia, no matter which State or Territory you are located. Our easy-to-access, online legal services mean that you can talk to our lawyers wherever you are, at a time that suits you.
Don’t hesitate – reach out for your free legal assistance today. Your peace of mind is just a click or call away!
Workplace investigation outcomes are the actions taken by an employer in response to the outcome of a workplace investigation. Employers may need to take several steps to address misconduct allegations,
In workplace investigations, the testimonies of witnesses frequently serve as a key part of the investigation. Often, witness statements and interviews will have a significant impact on the outcome.These firsthand
Unfair contract terms create an unreasonable imbalance of power between contracting parties. Australian law prohibits unfair terms where a party to the agreement is a small business.As of November 2023,
PROSPER LAW PTY LTD (ABN 65 659 996 719)
Australian Qualified Lawyers
