Sign in Subscribe
COVID-19

Impracticability Defense in Contract Disputes: Key Takeaways from SMS Financial Recovery Services, LLC v. Samaritan Senior Village, Inc.

Strategic Insights

— 2 min read

A recent court ruling has shed light on the nuances of the impracticability defense in contract disputes, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The case of SMS Financial Recovery Services, LLC v. Samaritan Senior Village, Inc. highlights the complexities of contractual obligations and the need for a fact-specific determination of the defense.

Key Takeaways:

  • The court upheld the doctrine of impracticability, but with a caveat: the defense may not apply if the contractor can perform substantially all of its obligations despite the circumstances.
  • The court emphasized the distinction between impracticability and frustration of purpose, suggesting that the latter is more relevant in cases where the contractor's performance is excused.
  • A genuine dispute remains as to whether the state non-visitation order "entirely or substantially destroyed the overall purpose of the contract[s]."
  • The court also held that even if Samaritan's performance was excused, it should have been excused only for the duration of the non-visitation order, not terminated unilaterally by Samaritan.
  • The case highlights the importance of a fact-based determination in contract disputes, particularly in situations where the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted business operations.
  • The court's decision underscores the need for parties to carefully consider the terms and conditions of their contracts, especially in times of crisis.
  • The case sets a precedent for future contract disputes, emphasizing the importance of a nuanced understanding of contractual obligations.
  • The court's ruling has implications for businesses operating in the healthcare sector, where the pandemic has had a significant impact on operations.

Statistics:

  • The case involves two contracts between SMS Financial Recovery Services, LLC and Samaritan Senior Village, Inc. totaling a three-year period.
  • Samuel Summit, an assisted living and skilled nursing facility in Watertown, New York, was one of the parties involved.
  • Samaritan Medical Center, Inc. in Massachusetts was also a party to the dispute.
  • The case was decided by a panel of three judges in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
  • The ruling was made on June 27, 2023, and is a significant development in contract law.

Sources:

  • SMS Financial Recovery Services, LLC v. Samaritan Senior Village, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 01-122-25) (18 pages) (Smith, J., of the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation).
  • Appealed from a decision by Talwani, J., in the U.S. District Court for the District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
  • Carlo Cellai, with whom Cellai Law Offices, P.C. was on brief, for the plaintiff-appellant; Mary L. D'Agostino, with whom Erica L. Masler, Hancock Estabrook, LLP, Gareth W. Notis and Morrison Mahoney LLP were on brief, for the defendants-appellees (Docket No. 24-1719).
  • Copyright (c) 2023 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.

Read more