A Global Delay Claiming clause in the context of restrictive covenants addresses a contractor's right to submit a single comprehensive claim for all delays and their cumulative impacts, rather than requiring separate claims for each individual delay event. This approach is sometimes used when a project experiences numerous small disruptions that collectively cause significant delay but would be administratively burdensome to claim individually. However, this clause is problematic because "global claims" lack the specificity and causation analysis that contract law typically requires—they make it nearly impossible for the other party to verify which delays actually caused the final delay, to dispute individual delay events, or to understand their true exposure. Courts and arbitrators increasingly disfavor global claims because they shift the burden of proof in ways that may be unfair and because they prevent meaningful dispute resolution. The clause matters because it can either protect a contractor from administrative burden or, conversely, expose a client to massive unsubstantiated claims depending on how it's drafted.
Avoid accepting or proposing broad global delay claims language. Instead, require that all delay claims be submitted with specific reference to individual delay events, their dates, durations, and causal connection to the critical path. If the contract permits any form of global analysis, strictly limit it to situations where delays are genuinely inseparable and require the claimant to provide detailed scheduling analysis demonstrating why individual claims are impossible. Include language requiring prompt notice of delays (within 10-30 days of occurrence) and prohibiting claims for delays discovered only after project completion. If you're defending against a global claim, be prepared to challenge it as lacking sufficient specificity and causation, as most modern contract standards and case law disfavor such claims.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this clause mean in simple terms?
A Global Delay Claiming clause in the context of restrictive covenants addresses a contractor's right to submit a single comprehensive claim for all delays and their cumulative impacts, rather than requiring separate claims for each individual delay event.
Why should I care about this clause?
This approach is sometimes used when a project experiences numerous small disruptions that collectively cause significant delay but would be administratively burdensome to claim individually.
What are my options?
However, this clause is problematic because "global claims" lack the specificity and causation analysis that contract law typically requires—they make it nearly impossible for the other party to verify which delays actually caused the final delay, to dispute individual delay events, or to understand their true exposure.
How does this affect small businesses?
Courts and arbitrators increasingly disfavor global claims because they shift the burden of proof in ways that may be unfair and because they prevent meaningful dispute resolution.