Important New York First Department Decision in Tapinekis V. Pace University: Time to Review Your Tuition and Fee Refund Disclaimers?

Why It Matters

The decision solidifies legal precedent that broad emergency‑closure clauses can shield institutions from pandemic‑related refund lawsuits, reducing financial exposure for colleges across the Second Circuit.

Key Takeaways

• Pace’s Emergency Closings clause treated as enforceable force‑majeure
• Courts reject need for the term “force majeure” in policies
• Pandemic refunds denied when disclaimer broadly covers unforeseen events
• Institutions advised to add “force majeure” wording for clarity
• Decision guides NY, CT, VT schools on tuition refund language

Pulse Analysis

The wave of COVID‑19 litigation has forced higher‑education leaders to scrutinize the fine print of tuition‑refund policies. While many schools relied on generic language promising continuity of instruction, courts have shown a willingness to interpret broadly worded emergency clauses as allocating risk to students. This shift underscores the importance of precise contractual drafting, especially for institutions that market a vibrant on‑campus experience but lack explicit force‑majeure provisions.

In the recent Tapinekis v. Pace University decision, the New York Appellate Division echoed the Second Circuit’s earlier rulings, confirming that Pace’s Emergency Closings provision—though it never used the phrase “force majeure”—effectively barred a student’s refund claim. The court highlighted that the clause covered “unforeseen, emergency circumstances” such as a pandemic, thereby satisfying the legal threshold for a force‑majeure defense. The opinion extends its reach to other Second Circuit jurisdictions, meaning colleges in Connecticut and Vermont must anticipate similar judicial reasoning.

Practically, universities should conduct a policy audit to ensure emergency‑closure language is both comprehensive and unmistakably tied to force‑majeure concepts. Adding the term “force majeure” and enumerating scenarios like pandemics, natural disasters, and equipment failures can preempt challenges that the clause is overly vague. Beyond legal compliance, clear disclosures protect institutional reputation by setting realistic expectations for students and families, ultimately contributing to more resilient financial planning in an increasingly uncertain environment.