Will Disney insurers pay for fatal alligator attack?

The tragic alligator attack and killing of a young boy on Disney property has led to questions regarding the park’s due diligence and coverages

Commercial Solutions

By

The attack and killing of a two-year old boy by an alligator on Walt Disney World resort property raises questions regarding the park’s general commercial liability – and whether their insurers will be on the hook.

Loretta Worters, vice president of communications at the US-based Insurance Information Institute, says that while it’s not clear what level of coverage Disney has, “Generally speaking, with commercial general liability coverage, under the bodily injury and property damage liability portion there is an exclusion of liability for animals - there’s no bodily injury or property damage arising directly or indirectly from the animal.”

That could mean Disney’s insurer may not have to pay losses from any lawsuits resulting from the incident.

“That said, hotels have very high legal duty of care to keep the premises as safe as possible for their guests,” she adds. “I think what’s going to be part of this case is, what’s the extent of the negligence on part of Disney World? Could more have been done?”

The boy, whose family is from Nebraska, was wading on the edge of a lagoon when he was dragged into the water by the wild alligator. While the area was marked by ‘no swimming’ signage, there were no warnings regarding wildlife.

Disney has since stated they will be replacing the signs as well as conducting an audit of waterfront areas throughout the property. However, sources have reported that the park has known for the past 14 months about growing alligator risks. In an interview obtained by news website TheWrap, an anonymous Disney insider alleges guests have been feeding alligators at the lagoon, leading to staff warnings and suggestions to erect a fence in the affected area.

Worters says that if that’s the case, the park will likely be in need of a good reputational risk policy. “It would pay for the hiring of a PR firm, and then if it shows there was a loss in revenue if people are now afraid to go there,” she says. “That could be a very strong issue; people saying ‘I don’t want to expose my child to being killed.’”

“Right now, they’re in their crisis period and they’re going to need PR expertise on how to address those issues – but if they have that coverage, I would image they would utilize that,” she says.


Related Links:
Clients should get dangerous animal coverage
Branding and your brokerage

Keep up with the latest news and events

Join our mailing list, it’s free!