In a significant reversal, Disney has withdrawn its claim that a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Jeffrey Piccolo over the death of his wife should be subject to arbitration due to terms he agreed to in a free trial of Disney+.
The legal battle centers on the tragic death of Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan in 2023, who suffered a fatal allergic reaction after dining at Raglan Road, a restaurant at Disney World in Florida. Piccolo, her husband, filed the lawsuit against both Disney and the restaurant’s owners, alleging that the establishment failed to adequately address his wife’s severe allergies to dairy and nuts, despite multiple warnings.
Initially, Disney argued that the case should be moved to arbitration, citing a clause in the terms and conditions of the Disney+ streaming service that Piccolo had briefly signed up for in 2019. This argument sparked widespread backlash, leading to criticism that Disney was attempting to avoid a public jury trial on tenuous legal grounds.
Faced with growing public criticism, Disney decided to withdraw its arbitration claim and allow the lawsuit to proceed in court. Josh D’Amaro, Chairman of Disney Parks, Experiences and Products, issued a statement emphasizing the company’s desire to handle the situation with sensitivity. “We believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss,” D’Amaro said. “As such, we’ve decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court.”
Piccolo’s legal team welcomed the decision, stating that corporate attempts to sidestep jury trials should be viewed with caution. They reaffirmed Piccolo’s commitment to seeking justice for his wife at the trial court level and expressed hope that the case would raise awareness about the millions of people who live with severe food allergies.
Legal experts have noted that Disney’s initial attempt to move the case to arbitration was highly unusual. Jamie Cartwright, a partner at Charles Russell Speechlys, suggested that the company’s change of heart was driven by the negative publicity surrounding its stance. “In attempting to push the claim into a confidential setting on what were very tenuous grounds, it succeeded only in creating the very publicity and attention it likely wanted to avoid,” Cartwright explained.
The lawsuit, which seeks more than $50,000 in damages, plus additional compensation for suffering, loss of income, and medical and legal expenses, continues to move forward. Disney maintains that it had no direct control over the management or operations of Raglan Road, which is operated by an independent company.
As Disney prepares to submit a filing to formally withdraw its arbitration request, legal commentators have remarked on the potential implications of the company’s initial argument. Some have described it as an attempt to stretch the boundaries of contract law by suggesting that terms agreed to for one service could apply broadly across all interactions with the company.
The case remains a poignant reminder of the serious consequences of food allergies and the importance of corporate accountability in ensuring customer safety.
