The Not-So-Fine Print: Unveiling the Secrets of Limitation of Liability Clause

by Rashmi Kishore | Jun 20, 2024 | Contract management, Document Review, eDiscovery

The primary function of a limitation of liability clause is to control and mitigate risk within a contract. This clause often becomes a focal point of contention during contract negotiations, as its provisions can significantly impact the parties involved. It is essential to grasp the purpose of such clauses and the objectives of each party during the negotiation process before delving into the details.

Limitation of Liability Clause

What’s at Stake?

For the party providing goods or services, this clause limits their financial exposure in case of a breach or failure. This helps them maintain predictability in potential liabilities and avoid catastrophic financial losses that could jeopardize their business. They might propose limitations based on the contract value, a fixed sum, or exclude certain types of damages like consequential or punitive damages. 

For the receiving party, the clause is a safeguard to ensure adequate compensation for damages or losses, and it serves as an incentive for the other party to fulfill its obligations with due diligence. They might push for higher liability caps, the inclusion of broader types of damages, or exceptions to the limitations for gross negligence or wilful misconduct.

Understanding these dynamics is crucial for crafting a limitation of liability clause that is fair and effective for both parties.

Balancing Act:  Scope, Caps & Carve-Outs in Your Liability Clause

In constructing a robust liability clause, it is essential to consider the following key components for clarity and protection carefully:

  1. Scope of Liability 
  2. Damage Caps
  3. Carve-Outs
  4. Insurance Coverage Integration

1. The Scope of Liability

When drafting a limitation of liability clause, it is crucial to be clear and specific about the types of damages

covered to ensure that both parties have a mutual understanding of their potential financial exposure in the event of a breach or dispute. Here’s how these damages can be addressed within the clause:

Direct Damages: Direct damages are the most straightforward and are often the first to be considered in a limitation of liability clause. These damages are directly related to the breach and are quantifiable. 

Example: If a supplier fails to deliver goods, the direct damages might be the cost of the goods, or the profits lost due to the inability to sell those goods.

Indirect Damages: Indirect damages, also known as consequential damages, are more complex and arise from the consequences of the breach rather than the breach itself. These damages are often less tangible and can include loss of business opportunities, reputation, or goodwill.

Example:  If a Company’s reputation suffers due to the supplier’s delayed shipment, leading to a long-term decline in sales, the resulting lost profits and reputational damage would be considered consequential damages.

Incidental Damages: Incidental damages cover the costs and expenses incurred as a direct result of the breach, such as the costs to remedy the breach or mitigate its effects. These can include expenses like finding a replacement supplier or additional costs incurred due to delays.

Example: Incidental damages are additional costs incurred due to a breach of contract, aimed at remedying, or mitigating its effects.

Specifying these types of damages in a limitation of liability clause helps manage risks, ensures both sides understand potential liabilities, and fosters transparency in contractual relationships.

2. Capping Liability in Contracts

Defining the maximum amount that one party can be held liable for is a critical aspect of establishing boundaries on financial exposure and effectively managing risks. This limit acts as a cap on potential liability in case of breaches or disputes, offering clarity and predictability in assessing financial consequences.

When negotiating a limitation of liability clause, parties can agree on various forms of maximum amount limits to determine the extent of financial responsibility in case of a breach. These limits assist parties in understanding their potential exposure and planning strategies to mitigate risks.

Examples of capping limits:

Specific Monetary Cap:

Company A provides consulting services to Company B under a service agreement with a stipulation that Company A’s liability for any breach of contract shall not exceed $50,000. 

This specific monetary cap establishes a clear financial limit for Company A’s liability, enabling both parties to evaluate risks and plan actions accordingly.

Multiple of the Contract Value:

In a manufacturing contract, a supplier agrees to provide raw materials to a manufacturer. They agree that the supplier’s liability for any breach shall not exceed three times the total contract value. 

This multiple-of-contract-value approach sets a predetermined financial exposure limit for the supplier in case of breach, based on a multiple of the original contract value.

Agreed-Upon Limit:

A software development company is contracted to create a custom software solution. The agreement specifies that the developer’s liability for any breach is limited to an amount equal to the total fees paid by the client for the services. 

By tying the liability limit to the fees paid, both parties can determine the maximum financial exposure of the developer in case of contractual violations.

By incorporating specific monetary caps, multiples of contract values, or other agreed-upon limits into the limitation of liability clause, parties can create a structured framework for managing financial risks and liabilities in their contracts. 

3. Carve-Outs

Exceptions in a limitation of liability clause are crucial for ensuring that parties are not shielded from liability in cases of intentional misconduct or gross negligence. 


In a professional services agreement, a consulting firm may include an exception that it will not be protected by the limitation of liability if it engages in intentional misconduct or gross negligence. 

In a vendor agreement, a technology company may stipulate that a software vendor will be held accountable for intentional acts or gross negligence that harm the company.

In a construction contract, a client may ensure that a construction company remains liable for intentional wrongdoing or gross negligence that results in damage to the property.


4. Insurance Coverage Integration

When negotiating a limitation of liability clause, it’s important to consider insurance as an additional layer of protection. Insurance can cover risks beyond the contract’s limitations, offering financial security and mitigating losses from unexpected events. 


In a construction contract, liability insurance can protect against property damage or bodily injury exceeding the contract’s cap.

In a service agreement, professional indemnity insurance can cover claims for professional negligence beyond the contractual limits.

For vendors, product liability insurance can safeguard against claims for product defects or injuries.

 Insurance Coverage Integration

By combining insurance with limitation of liability clauses, parties can enhance risk management and provide extra financial protection, ensuring greater security in their contractual relationships.

In conclusion, negotiating a limitation of liability clause is a crucial step in safeguarding your business interests. By understanding the clause’s purpose, potential pitfalls, and key negotiation points, you can ensure a balanced agreement that protects you from unforeseen circumstances while maintaining a fair playing field for both parties. Remember, a well-crafted limitation of liability clause fosters trust and promotes a successful business relationship built on mutual understanding of potential risks.