Husband’s Wrongful Death Lawsuit Challenged Over Disney+ Trial Subscription

[Social Media]

 

Jeffrey Piccolo is currently embroiled in a legal battle with entertainment giant Disney after the tragic death of his wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, who died from a severe allergic reaction. The incident occurred in October 2023 at an Irish pub, Raglan Road, located in Disney Springs, Florida. Piccolo alleges that the pub staff assured his wife that the food she ordered was free from allergens, a promise that tragically turned out to be false. Now, as Piccolo seeks justice for his wife's death, Disney is attempting to have his wrongful death claim dismissed, citing an unexpected and controversial legal argument: a subscriber agreement to Disney+.

 

Piccolo is suing Disney for $50,000 after what he describes as a preventable tragedy. The lawsuit claims that on October 5, 2023, Piccolo, his wife, and his mother dined at Raglan Road, a pub advertised on Disney's website as offering "allergen-free food." Mrs. Tangsuan, who had a well-documented and severe allergy to nuts and dairy, ordered dishes that the server reportedly "guaranteed" were safe for her to eat. Despite these assurances, Mrs. Tangsuan experienced a life-threatening allergic reaction approximately 45 minutes after her meal while shopping at Disney Springs. Despite using an EpiPen, she collapsed and later died in a hospital. A medical examination confirmed that her death was due to "anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system."

 

In a shocking legal twist, Disney is attempting to use a 2019 Disney+ trial subscription agreement to dismiss the wrongful death lawsuit. Disney argues that Piccolo agreed to arbitration clauses when he signed up for a one-month trial of Disney's streaming service. The company claims that this agreement, which includes a waiver of the right to a jury trial, should apply to Piccolo’s current lawsuit over his wife’s death. According to Disney, the subscriber agreement clearly states that "any dispute between You and Us… is subject to a class action waiver and must be resolved by individual binding arbitration."

 

Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution that allows parties to resolve disputes outside of court, typically through a neutral arbitrator whose decision is binding. Disney's legal team asserts that by agreeing to the Disney+ terms, Piccolo is bound to settle any disputes through arbitration, not in court, and this includes the wrongful death claim related to the incident at Raglan Road. Additionally, Disney notes that Piccolo agreed to a similar arbitration provision when creating an account on Disney's website and app prior to the family's visit to Disney Springs.

 

Disney’s argument has been met with strong opposition from Piccolo's legal representation. Brian Denney, the lawyer representing Piccolo, has condemned Disney's stance as "absurd." Denney argues that it is unreasonable to apply a streaming service's subscriber agreement to a case involving a wrongful death at a Disney property. In a court filing, Denney wrote, "The notion that terms agreed to by a consumer when creating a Disney+ free trial account would forever bar that consumer's right to a jury trial in any dispute with any Disney affiliate or subsidiary is so outrageously unreasonable and unfair as to shock the judicial conscience."

 

In response to the lawsuit, Disney has maintained that it is not directly responsible for the operations at Raglan Road. The company stated, "We are deeply saddened by the family's loss but stressed it doesn't own or run the pub. We are merely defending ourselves against the plaintiff's attorney's attempt to include us in their lawsuit against the restaurant." Disney Springs, a popular entertainment district within the Walt Disney World Resort, is home to a variety of dining and shopping establishments, some of which are operated by third-party vendors like Raglan Road.

 

The legal challenge posed by Disney's reliance on the Disney+ subscriber agreement raises complex questions about the enforceability and scope of arbitration clauses, especially when applied in situations far removed from the original context in which they were agreed upon. The case has drawn attention not only for its tragic circumstances but also for the broader implications it may have on consumer rights and the extent to which companies can enforce arbitration agreements.

 

Raglan Road, the pub at the center of the incident, has not responded to requests for comment regarding the lawsuit. As the case moves forward, a hearing is scheduled for October 2, 2024, in county court in Orlando, where the judge will consider Disney's motion to dismiss the lawsuit based on the arbitration clause. The outcome of this hearing could have significant ramifications for the case and for how arbitration agreements are interpreted in future legal disputes.

 

As the legal battle continues, the case underscores the ongoing tension between consumer protection and corporate legal strategies. While arbitration clauses have become increasingly common in various types of contracts, their application in cases like this one raises ethical and legal questions that courts may need to address in the coming years. For now, Piccolo and his legal team remain determined to pursue their wrongful death claim in court, arguing that the circumstances of his wife’s death warrant a full and fair trial, not a closed-door arbitration.

 

Credit: Sky News  2024-08-16

 

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

 

Cigna offers a variety of health insurance plans designed to meet the minimum requirement for medical treatment coverage, with benefits reaching up to THB 3 million. These plans are tailored to provide comprehensive healthcare solutions for expatriates, ensuring peace of mind and access to quality medical services. To explore the full range of Cigna's expat health insurance options and find a plan that suits your needs, click here for more information.

[klauskunkel]

5 hours ago, Social Media said:

a 2019 Disney+ trial subscription agreement

five-year-old trial subscription clauses should terminate after the trial subscription

5 hours ago, Social Media said:

Additionally, Disney notes that Piccolo agreed to a similar arbitration provision when creating an account on Disney's website and app prior to the family's visit to Disney Springs.

This one is a bit more timely...

So, when you create a Disney account, ostensibly to buy tickets for two, the website requires a similar agreement to arbitration. So Mr. Piccolo checked a box to proceed and he waives his right for a trial. I assume, his wife did not waive her right for a trial, nor could Mr. Piccolo waive that right for his wife, which the website seems to have been designed to do automatically (two tickets, and you waive the rights of all persons involved, that's a website design flaw. I doubt that is legally allowed... Every individual should need to waive their own respective rights). And now Mr. Piccolo is not going to trial for himself but as an agent for his deceased wife, and therefore these waiver clause are not applicable, imo.

 

I do hope Disney is being taken to the cleaners just for these shameful legal tricks they are trying to pull.

 

...and, yes, this all just my speculation...

Edited August 16 by klauskunkel

[Dcheech]

It is a farce but Disney is trying to increase litigation costs, as the payout is only 50K, it may not be worth it to proceed, as lawyer fees will eat a lot of that even if they win. . 

It should be noted the plaintiffs have already been paid by the Restaraunt/Pubs insurance company. And you can bet it was a BIG payout. Theya re just trying to pump Disney for an additional 50K.  Disney is the landlord, nothing to do with the Pub, staff, training, allergy protocols, etc. However a big name, with deep pockets ...  Always the money, always. 

[impulse]

1 hour ago, Dcheech said:

It is a farce but Disney is trying to increase litigation costs, as the payout is only 50K, it may not be worth it to proceed, as lawyer fees will eat a lot of that even if they win. . 

It should be noted the plaintiffs have already been paid by the Restaraunt/Pubs insurance company. And you can bet it was a BIG payout. Theya re just trying to pump Disney for an additional 50K.  Disney is the landlord, nothing to do with the Pub, staff, training, allergy protocols, etc. However a big name, with deep pockets ...  Always the money, always. 

Disney has tons of lawyers on staff, and trainees that would be picking lint out of their bellybuttons if they didn't have a mundane case assigned. Their incremental cost is peanuts.

 

I think the liability limit is set by state law at $50k, but it would be interesting to see what the Pub settlement was.

 

I feel for restaurants that have to accept liability for any number of food allergies.  Imagine being sued out of business if a supplier used peanut oil instead of canola oil and failed to disclose.  

 

But I don't feel for Disney at all. I hope they also get the horse they rode in on. With punitive damages.

 

Edited August 16 by impulse

[stevenl]

9 hours ago, Dcheech said:

It is a farce but Disney is trying to increase litigation costs, as the payout is only 50K, it may not be worth it to proceed, as lawyer fees will eat a lot of that even if they win. . 

It should be noted the plaintiffs have already been paid by the Restaraunt/Pubs insurance company. And you can bet it was a BIG payout. Theya re just trying to pump Disney for an additional 50K.  Disney is the landlord, nothing to do with the Pub, staff, training, allergy protocols, etc. However a big name, with deep pockets ...  Always the money, always. 

Any source for your claim the insurance of the restaurant paid already?