The husband of a New York University doctor who died following a severe allergic reaction at a Disney facility is suing the Walt Disney Company for damages but Disney Corporation is reportedly trying to dismiss the case based on unrelated agreements the plaintiff signed when subscribing to Disney’s streaming service.
Jeffrey Piccolo, the plaintiff, accuses Disney of negligence that led to the death of his wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, after dining at a restaurant in the Disney Springs shopping village in Florida last October. According to documents filed with the court, Tangsuan, a doctor affiliated with New York University, had repeatedly informed the restaurant staff of her severe allergies to nuts and dairy products when placing her order.
Despite these precautions, Tangsuan began experiencing severe difficulty breathing and fainted shortly after leaving the restaurant. She later died due to complications from anaphylaxis, according to the medical report.
Disney’s legal team went on to file a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, citing the arbitration clauses that Piccolo had allegedly agreed to when signing up for a one-month trial of Disney+, the company’s streaming service, in 2019.
Disney’s attorneys argue that Piccolo had also agreed to similar arbitration terms when using the “My Disney Experience” app to purchase theme park tickets in September last year. These agreements, Disney claims, require Piccolo to resolve disputes through arbitration rather than in court.
The company argues that these clauses preclude Piccolo from pursuing his lawsuit in court.
Piccolo’s attorneys, however, have countered Disney’s argument, arguing that the idea that consumers who create a Disney+ account during a free trial period would forever be deprived of the right to a jury trial in any dispute with any Disney-related entity is both unreasonable and unfair. The called on the court to not enforce such an agreement.
The lawsuit, filed under Florida’s wrongful death law, seeks more than $50,000 in damages. Piccolo is also requesting compensation for emotional distress, loss of income, and funeral expenses.
Legal experts have noted that this case could set a significant precedent for how arbitration agreements are applied to consumer contracts. Critics argue that expanding the scope of such agreements to cover unrelated incidents could have far-reaching implications for consumer rights.
TISG/