3 ms·
I predict we will soon learn that the attorney who filed the motion "on behalf of Disney" was hired by an insurance company providing bodily injury insurance co
by keernan 2y ago
I predict we will soon learn that the attorney who filed the motion "on behalf of Disney" was hired by an insurance company providing bodily injury insurance coverage for the restaurant; and that Disney had no knowledge of the motion or its legal argument; and that Disney disagrees with the purported legal position taken.
By way of background: I am a retired trial attorney and spent 40 years litigating cases involving insurance.
- ggm 2y agoI would imagine Disney as a corporate consumer of goods and services would also realise it too was at risk of inadvertently agreeing to "egregious" terms if this went ahead: they would not want to incur the cost of even finer grained legals on things they sign to. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the Gander. Or in more modern parlance "no, not like that"