No such thing can be considered as the best entertainment on a summer weekend than a courtroom showdown. The Walt Disney Company filed a lawsuit against Fireman’s Fund Insurance which led to a great conflict.
How it all started?
A dispute that amounted to $10 million was filed on July 1 in the LA Superior Court.
The Hollywood industry is not stable and struggling due to the coronavirus worldwide pandemic. The productions have to hit the break on their operations, affecting the most iconic entertainment industry in a very negative way.
The people have already witnessed the pandemic created dust-ups between the insurers and UTA along with the others. The people are not sure about the insurance companies’ preparation for more cases like this. Additionally, the people are confused about Harvey Oswald’s act in Dallas.
Talking about this matter, Disney claimed last year the insured amount for the losses during the second wave of the pandemic and the extended holiday break for COVID 19 from their Burbank-based insurance company. But the Fireman’s Fund said they don’t pay any amount from the particular period that Disney claimed.
As their policy from October 2019 with Disney, Fireman made their statement accordingly. Disney is very generous and concerned for its members; therefore, both parties failed to agree with the conclusion of this conflict. However, the insurance providers sued Disney to ensure declaratory relief.
Complaint Statement of Fireman’s Fund
The legal advisors filed a complaint consisting of 8 pages at Culver City’s Gladstone, Weisberg. The complaint said that the production process was supposed to resume as the orders had been modified after a few months. Also, they stated that in some jurisdictions, some special orders were implemented, like quarantining the associated people who are exposed to COVID-19.
None of the parties disagree with the facts. Also, presumably, both parties were planning to close the conflicts with the claims for the losses of the first wave. However, the parties, especially Disney, disagree with the policy related to the Covid related costs.
The Fireman’s filing stated that the policy covers the expenses related to the Covid of TWDC. But Disney is claiming for non-Covid expenses too, which is not a part of the policy. The COVID expenses are for the people who need to be quarantined for valid reasons. Expenses out of this will not be entertained as TWDC’s insurance. The insurance is for the second wave of covid 19 under Civil Authority Coverage norms.
How will Fireman’s Fund resolve this?
Fireman’s Fund contends the Civil Authority Coverage cannot be triggered by orders of civil authorities requiring.
According to the statement, the Fireman’s Fund clarified that the Peril Coverage of imminent risks would not be applicable in this case. The reason behind this statement is that the peril or the crisis is not imminent anymore.
The pandemic made its first hit in the year 2020. The only imminent risk is the infection that the policy does not cover. TWDC puts its members to the harmful situation intentionally by continuing the production process in the pandemic situation. If the risk was unintentional only in that case, the risk could be imminent.
It was the tradition to give a pause on the production process in the holiday season. For that, the members will be able to enjoy the holidays. The break should start from some days before Christmas till the new year. But as TWDC said, they did not get any notice from the public health authorities in Los Angeles, Atlanta, and London to increase the break period for another 1 or 2 weeks due to COVID-19. They said that the authorities requested them but never passed any orders.
The battle continues
According to the Fireman’s disputes, TWDC claimed for the holiday hiatus. The majority of the claim is falling under the claims for the second wave. However, there is one particular statement present for the Christmas issue. TWDC is contending that Policy’s Indemnity Coverage for TWDC is applicable in this case.
On the other hand, Fireman’s Fund stated that the policy coverage applies only to the uncontrollable losses of TWDC. But extending the holiday break was totally in the hands of the company. This was when the pandemic was at its peak, and the people were losing their lives.