Jeffrey Piccolo, the widower of Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Disney following her tragic death due to an allergic reaction at a Disney World restaurant. Dr. Tangsuan, a respected physician at NYU Langone Hospital, suffered a fatal allergic reaction while dining at Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs during a visit to the Florida resort in October. Tangsuan was severely allergic to dairy and nuts, and the couple specifically chose the restaurant for its promises to accommodate food allergies.

Widower Sues Disney Over Wife’s Death

According to the lawsuit filed by Piccolo, the couple had extensive discussions with the restaurant staff about Tangsuan’s allergies. They inquired about the safety of specific menu items, asked the server to confirm with the chef that the dishes could be made allergen-free, and repeatedly sought reassurance that the food was safe. Despite these precautions, Tangsuan began experiencing severe difficulty breathing approximately 45 minutes after eating, leading to her collapse. She administered an EpiPen, and 911 was called, but she was later pronounced dead at the hospital. The medical examiner’s investigation confirmed that her death was due to anaphylaxis caused by elevated levels of dairy and nuts in her system. Piccolo’s lawsuit accuses both Raglan Road Irish Pub and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S. Inc. (WDPR) of negligence in preparing Tangsuan’s food and failing to train their staff adequately to ensure allergen-free meals as requested. He is seeking over $50,000 in damages and a jury trial.

Disney’s Legal Defense: Arbitration Clause in Disney+ Terms

In response to the lawsuit, Disney is attempting to have the case dismissed by invoking an arbitration clause embedded in the terms and conditions of a Disney+ trial that Piccolo signed up for in 2019. Disney’s legal team argues that the clause, that Piccolo agreed to when creating a Disney+ account, mandates that all disputes between him and any Disney affiliate must be resolved through individual binding arbitration rather than in court. Disney contends that this clause covers Piccolo’s claims in the wrongful death lawsuit, despite the unrelated context of the streaming service. Disney’s motion to compel arbitration, filed in late May, highlights the company’s preference for arbitration over litigation due to its efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Disney asserts that Piccolo agreed to these terms not only when signing up for Disney+ but also when purchasing park tickets online in September 2023.

Piccolo’s Lawyers Call Disney’s Argument “Outrageously Unreasonable”

Piccolo’s legal team has vehemently opposed Disney’s motion, labeling it as “preposterous” and “fatally flawed.” They argue that the Disney+ Subscriber Agreement cannot reasonably be interpreted to cover claims arising from a death at a Disney restaurant, far removed from the streaming service context. The lawyers emphasize that Piccolo is representing his late wife’s estate, which did not exist when the Disney+ account was created, making it impossible for him to bind the estate to any such agreement.

Furthermore, Piccolo’s attorneys argue that Disney’s attempt to enforce the arbitration clause is an effort to deprive Tangsuan’s estate of its right to a jury trial. They also criticize Disney for not raising the arbitration issue earlier in the legal proceedings.