A man’s quest for justice following his wife’s tragic death at a Disney resort has taken a shocking turn. According to a wrongful death lawsuit, the man’s wife suffered a fatal allergic reaction at a Disney restaurant. However, Disney is arguing he has no right to sue in a traditional court setting. The company’s surprising defense? A clause buried in the fine print of the Disney+ subscriber agreement the man signed years prior.
Disney+’s Fine Print Foils Grieving Husband’s Lawsuit
Jeffrey J. Piccolo filed a lawsuit against Disney Parks and Resorts in February, following the death of his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, after she consumed food containing allergens at a restaurant in Disney World.
According to the complaint, Piccolo, his wife, and his mother dined at Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant in Orlando, Florida, on October 5. Despite repeatedly inquiring if Tangsuan’s allergies could be accommodated, the complaint states that the server assured them it would be safe. Tragically, Tangsuan experienced a severe allergic reaction and passed away at a nearby hospital.
In May, Disney filed court documents arguing that the $50,000 lawsuit should be dismissed and resolved through individual arbitration, citing terms Piccolo had agreed to when signing up for a free trial of the Disney+ streaming service. The filing also claims he accepted these terms when purchasing tickets via the Walt Disney Parks website.
Disney’s lawyers explained that users must check boxes that link to the terms of use and confirm their agreement before proceeding. The filing emphasized that users cannot select “Agree & Continue” without checking the boxes.
The filing included a copy of the terms and conditions, highlighting a section titled “Disney Terms of Use,” which states that “any dispute between you and us, except for small claims, is subject to a class action waiver and must be resolved by individual binding arbitration.”
A Disney spokesperson told NBC News, “We are deeply saddened by the family’s loss and understand their grief. Given that this restaurant is neither owned nor operated by Disney, we are merely defending ourselves against the plaintiff’s attorney’s attempt to include us in their lawsuit against the restaurant.”
The company further stated that its “position in no way affects any wrongful death or other claims the plaintiff may have against the restaurant,” adding that arbitration is widely recognized as a quicker and less costly alternative to litigation.
Disney’s Arbitration Demand Met with Outrage
Piccolo’s lawyers fired back earlier this month, vehemently rejecting Disney’s attempt to force the case into arbitration. The legal team described Disney’s reasoning as “preposterous,” arguing that Piccolo signed up for the Disney+ account on his PlayStation and believed he canceled it during the free trial.
“There is simply no reading of the Disney+ Subscriber Agreement which would support the notion that Mr. Piccolo agreed to arbitrate claims arising from injuries sustained by his wife at a restaurant located on premises owned by a Disney theme park or resort which ultimately led to her death,” the attorneys stated.
They further emphasized the absurdity of the argument, calling it “outrageously unreasonable and unfair” to suggest that terms agreed to during a free trial could permanently waive a consumer’s right to a jury trial.
Piccolo’s lawyers have formally requested the court to reject Disney’s arbitration demand.
More Details about the Lawsuit against Disney
Piccolo accused Disney and Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant of negligence in his wife’s death. In his complaint, he stated that they informed the server at the restaurant that Tangsuan, who was a physician at NYU Langone Health, had severe allergies. The server assured the family that the food would be prepared allergy-free.
After ordering their meals, the family grew concerned when the dishes arrived without “allergen-free flags” and asked the server again about the food. Once more, they were reassured by the server.
Shortly after eating, Tangsuan began experiencing difficulty breathing. She then entered a nearby restaurant where she collapsed. The complaint states that she was suffering from a “severe acute allergic reaction to the food served at Raglan.”
The complaint went on to say that Tangsuan used her EpiPen to try to stop the allergic reaction while a bystander called 911., Piccolo was unaware of the situation because he had returned to their hotel room. When Piccolo called his wife’s cell phone, a bystander answered and informed him that she had been taken to the hospital. Upon his arrival at the hospital, he was told that she had passed away.
According to the medical examiner’s autopsy report cited in the complaint, Tangsuan died from anaphylaxis and had elevated levels of nut and dairy in her system. Tangsuan’s death was ruled an accident.