In maritime law, the “Act of God” defense – also known as force majeure – was once a reliable shield for operators facing liability after a natural disaster. If a storm, hurricane, or earthquake caused damage that no human skill could have prevented, the party could, in theory, escape legal responsibility. But in practice – especially in today’s technologically advanced world – this defense is extremely difficult to successfully invoke due to several strict requirements and the inherent nature of maritime operations.

To successfully invoke the Act of God defense, a party must show that the accident could not have been prevented by human skill and precaution and a proper display of nautical skills. In other words, the Act of God event must be the sole and exclusive cause of the damage or injury. This definition alone makes it challenging to apply, as even seemingly natural disasters can be influenced or exacerbated by human actions or inactions.

Additionally, maritime law places a duty on vessel owners and operators to exercise reasonable care to ensure the safety of their vessels and those onboard. This includes taking precautions against foreseeable weather conditions, even if severe. This duty of care often makes it hard to argue that the effects of a natural event could not have been avoided by reasonable prudence and diligence. And Courts look at whether the party causing the damage ought to have been in that predicament and examine the actions taken in the days preceding a weather event to assist in such an analysis.

The recent United States Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit decision in Gulf Island Shipyards, L.L.C. v. LaShip, L.L.C., No. 24-30464, 2025 WL 2171133 (5th Cir. July 30, 2025), illustrates just how difficult it is to successfully invoke the Act of God defense.

In Gulf Island Shipyards, Hurricane Ida’s catastrophic landfall in August 2021 spawned a complex web of breakaways and collisions along the Houma Navigation Canal in Louisiana. Gulf Island Shipyards, a marine construction company, had two incomplete service vessels moored at the Bollinger Dock Yard. These vessels had no propulsion systems and were secured with a mooring plan involving unburied 25-ton blocks and stationary bollards. While Gulf Island initially planned to reinforce the moorings with crawler cranes before the storm, it ultimately did not follow through.

When Hurricane Ida hit, one of Gulf Island’s vessels broke free and collided with the M/V BETTY CHOUEST. Reel Pipe, owner of the BETTY CHOUEST, filed a claim for damages, and Gulf Island attempted to invoke the Act of God defense. After a six-day bench trial, the district court rejected the Act of God defense, and found that Gulf Island’s deficient mooring practices, not the hurricane alone, proximately caused the vessel’s breakaway. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit upheld the ruling. It emphasized that extreme weather does not immunize negligence if “human skill and precaution” could have averted the damage.

This case reflects a broader trend in maritime law – Courts rarely accept the Act of God defense today, especially in cargo claims, collision cases, and marine insurance disputes. Given the availability of advanced weather forecasting, modern engineering, and risk planning, maritime operators are now expected to anticipate and prepare for even extreme weather. If any human oversight or negligence contributed, even slightly, the defense will likely fail.

The takeaway here – the Act of God defense once held legitimate weight in maritime law, but in the modern era where risk is monitored, managed, and forecasted, the chances of invoking it successfully have dwindled to near zero. Unless a truly extraordinary, unpreventable, and well-documented natural disaster occurs, courts are likely to view the defense with suspicion. In most cases, even the slightest operational misstep will erase its applicability.

For maritime operators, the lesson is simple: Don’t rely on the Act of God. Invest in prevention, documentation, and compliance. Because in today’s risk-aware environment, claiming helplessness is no longer a strong legal strategy, but rather, a liability. Courts expect operators to act with foresight, skill, and diligence, and when disaster strikes, the burden is on you to prove you did all you reasonably could.

Lauren Guichard Hoskin is a member of Kean Miller’s Offshore Energy & Marine group and practices in the firm’s New Orleans office. She has successfully handled and resolved lawsuits involving maritime personal injury claims, oil and gas casualty and property damage claims, drilling accidents, well blowouts, and various breach of contract disputes.