Disney says a widower whose wife died after suffering a severe allergic reaction at a theme park restaurant cannot sue the company because she had previously signed up for a free one-month trial of its Disney+ streaming service.
Kanokporn Tangsuan, 42, suffered a life-threatening allergic reaction on Oct. 5 last year after she and her family dined at the Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant at Disney Springs, Walt Disney World’s outdoor shopping center. The family says the waiter assured them the food would be allergen-free.
Her husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, filed a wrongful death lawsuit in Florida, alleging that Walt Disney Parks and Resorts was negligent and failed to adequately train its staff about food allergies.
But Disney has sought to dismiss the suit, arguing that it should instead be sent to arbitration because the terms and agreements of its streaming service contract include a “binding arbitration clause,” court records show.
Piccolo’s lawyers called Disney’s argument “absurd” and said it “bordered on the surreal,” according to a court filing obtained by DailyMail.com. His lawyers have also urged the judge to reject the company’s motion to dismiss the case.
Piccolo is seeking more than $50,000 from Disney for mental pain and suffering, funeral expenses, medical expenses and loss of income.
Jeffrey Piccolo (left) filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Disney after his wife Kanokporn Tangsuan (right) died from an allergic reaction.
Tangsuan and her family had dined at the Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant (pictured) at Disney Springs on Oct. 5, shortly before she suffered a life-threatening allergic reaction.
Disney, in a May 31 court filing, cited that Piccolo created a Disney+ account in November 2019 and purchased tickets to Epcot in 2023, which required him to agree to its terms and conditions.
By signing up for a free trial of the streaming service, Piccolo agreed to the terms of Disney’s “Subscriber Agreement,” which includes an arbitration clause in Section 7 titled “Binding Arbitration and Class Action Waiver,” the company argued.
“(The section) applies to ‘all disputes,’ including those involving ‘The Walt Disney Company or its affiliates.’ Walt Disney Parks and Resorts is an affiliate of The Walt Disney Company,” the company said.
They also said Piccolo agreed to “Walt Disney World terms” when he purchased tickets to the park for himself and his wife in September 2023, which include the same arbitration clause.
Disney also stressed that by agreeing to the terms he was representing his late wife in doing so.
“It is also irrelevant whether Piccolo actually reviewed the Disney Terms,” the company added.
Piccolo’s lawyers rejected the company’s “incredible argument,” claiming that Disney’s position means that anyone who signs up for a free trial of the streaming service “will have forever waived the right to a jury trial enjoyed by them and any future assets associated with them.”
“As is clear from the preceding sentence, this argument borders on the surreal,” the plaintiffs argued in an Aug. 2 court filing.
“However, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts improperly attempts to deny this distinction by using the absurd argument,” the complaint states.
Disney said the matter should go to arbitration because that’s what Piccolo agreed to when he created a Disney+ account in November 2019. Pictured is an excerpt from the Terms and Conditions of the Disney+ subscription agreement.
The suit further alleges that Disney made a mistake in the contract Piccolo signed.
The complaint, in a footnote, alleges that the company “incorrectly states that the Disney+ Subscriber Agreement is between Disney DTC and/or its affiliates by misquoting language from Disney’s Terms of Use, rather than the Disney+ Subscriber Agreement.”
Piccolo’s lawyers also argued that Disney waived its right to seek arbitration when it filed its first response to the lawsuit without raising the issue.
“Even if the Court were to consider the substance of WDPR’s Untimely Motion, it relies on the astonishing argument that anyone who signs up for a Disney+ account, even free trials that do not extend beyond the trial period, will have forever waived the right to a jury trial that they enjoy and any future estates associated with them,” Piccolo’s attorney said.
A Disney spokesperson said in a statement to DailyMail.com: “We are deeply saddened by the family’s loss and understand their grief. Since this restaurant is not owned or operated by Disney, we are simply defending ourselves against the plaintiff’s attorney’s attempt to include us in their lawsuit against the restaurant.”
Defense attorney Misty Marris, appearing in NewsNation’s CUOMO Show On Wednesday, it was suggested that a judge would be unlikely to consider it “reasonable” for a consumer to waive their right to be heard in a court of law “because they signed up for an app on their TV”.
Marris acknowledged that Disney+ users are entering into a contract, adding: “But you can’t just look at that isolated component of a contract from a court’s perspective and determine that each and every case, no matter what it is, has to go to arbitration.”
He argued that the entire contract agreement will have to be considered.
“I saw user registration, subscriptions, app cancellation, payment, royalties, everything you would think would be related to using the app, using the platform,” he said of his review of the agreement.
“Not when you step on that property and if you suffer a personal injury while in the park.’
He added that when “something is left unsaid” in a contract “it depends on the intention of the parties” and “what a reasonable person would think.”
Disney also argued that Piccolo agreed to its arbitration terms and conditions when he purchased Epcot tickets.
A defense attorney has suggested that a judge is unlikely to find it “reasonable” for a consumer to waive their right to be heard in a court of law “because they signed up for an app on their TV.” Pictured: Disney+ app
Piccolo said his wife was highly allergic to dairy and nuts and the couple decided to eat at the pub because they believed Disney would have adequate safety measures in place.
The couple repeatedly asked the waiter if there was any allergen-free food and claimed the waiter even went to confirm this with the chef.
“The waiter assured them unequivocally that the food would be allergen-free,” the lawsuit reads.
Tangsuan, a physician at NYU Langone in New York City, ordered the following dishes from the restaurant’s menu: ‘Sure I’m Frittered,’ ‘Scallop Forest,’ ‘The Shepherd Went Vegan,’ and ‘Onion Rings.’
The bottom of the menu available online states: ‘Cross contamination may occur and therefore we CANNOT GUARANTEE that any dish we prepare will be completely gluten/allergen free.’
She began to have severe difficulty breathing and collapsed to the ground. 911 was called and the caller told the operator that Tangsuan had self-administered an Epi-Pen.
Piccolo and his mother Jackie tried to call Tangsuan to meet her, but a person answered her phone and told them she had been taken to the hospital.
Tangsuan was severely allergic to dairy and nuts and the couple decided to eat at the pub because they believed Disney would have adequate safety measures in place.
Piccolo said he repeatedly asked his waiter about allergen-free food, and said the waiter even went to confirm with the chef.
Tangsuan was a doctor at NYU Langone in New York and her husband is claiming more than $50,000 from Disney.
She died in hospital and the coroner’s inquest determined the cause of death was anaphylaxis due to high levels of dairy and nuts in her system.
The lawsuit notes that while Disney does not own the pub, “Disney had control over the menu of food offered, the hiring and/or training of waitstaff, and the policies and procedures regarding food allergies at Disney Springs restaurants, including Raglan Road.”
They argue that Disney failed to adequately train its employees about food allergies and that employees failed to adequately warn Tangsuam about allergens in its food.
The filing said Disney and the pub “had a duty of care to their guests to ensure that foods that were designated as allergen-free and/or foods that were requested to be prepared allergen-free were in fact free of allergens that could cause death or serious physical harm to guests with food allergies.”