Stone took possession of the Premises in January 2018. From March 20, 2020 through March 2, 2021, Stone was forced to comply with drastically changing COVID-19 dine-in ordinances, including prohibitions against indoor and on-premises dining. Stone described these restrictions as “devastat[ing],” and as a result, Stone withheld rent from December 2020 through March 2021, contending that COVID-19 excused or deferred its obligation to pay rent based on the force majeure provision.
Landlord West Pueblo sued Stone for the rent that would ordinarily be due for that time period. In ruling in favor of Landlord West Pueblo, the Court of Appeal applied the plain meaning of the force majeure provision to hold that Stone was not “delayed, interrupted or prevented from” paying rent due to COVID-19. The Court found Stone had the financial resources to pay rent to West Pueblo. Indeed, Stone conceded that it could and, therefore, the Court found the provision did not apply because Stone was able to meet its obligations under the Lease by making timely payments. The Court noted that a “mere increase in expense does not excuse the performance unless there exists extreme and unreasonable difficulty, expense, injury, or loss involved.” Essentially, because Stone was able to make the rental payments, it was still responsible for the rent.
The Court did note that “the COVID-19 pandemic qualified as a force majeure event” under the Lease, i.e., “is due to fire, act of God, governmental act or failure to act … or any cause outside the reasonable control of that Party.” That the Tenant could still make its rent precluded the Tenant from taking advantage of that provision.
The moral of the story? As we have explained previously, it sometimes is all about the drafting. Be careful in drafting what some people call “boilerplate” provisions, as they may become all-important in a subsequent lawsuit.