Disney’s argument that a wrongful death case must be arbitrated because the decedent’s surviving spouse accepted Terms of Service containing an arbitration provision when he signed up online for Disney+ quickly spread across the internet, resulting in widespread disdain for Disney’s perceived callousness. Does this remind anyone else of this scene from the Simpsons?
Looking past the headlines, lets take a look at the wrongful death case of Dr. Tangsuan.
Here are the basic facts.
Jeffrey Piccolo sued Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc. d/b/a Raglan Road Irish Pub and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts following the death of his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan of Long Island, New York, who suffered a fatal allergic reaction after dining at a Disney World restaurant.
Dr. Tangsuan, who was allergic to nuts and dairy, ate at Raglan Road Irish Pub in October 2023 during a family visit to Disney World. Despite informing the server of her severe allergies, she was allegedly served dishes that contained nuts and/or dairy.
Approximately 45 minutes after eating at Raglan Road Irish Pub, Dr. Tangsuan collapsed from a severe allergic reaction and died shortly thereafter at a hospital.
Piccolo’s lawsuit requests a jury trial.
This is Disney’s argument.
Disney filed a motion to compel arbitration, arguing that Piccolo agreed to settle disputes out of court when he signed up for Disney+ and later purchased Epcot tickets online.
Disney claims:
“[When he signed up for Disney+,] Piccolo had to select “Agree & Continue.” Immediately above was a disclosure notifying Piccolo that ‘[b]y clicking Agree & Continue, you agree to our Subscriber Agreement.’ Piccolo then selected ‘Agree and Continue.’ The term ‘Subscriber Agreement’ was underlined in blue font and provided a hyperlink directly to the document. … Piccolo also agreed to the Disney Terms of Use [which contained an arbitration clause].”
The arbitration clause stated that “any dispute between You and Us, Except for Small Claims … must be resolved by individual binding arbitration.”
Sure, that arbitration clause is certainly broad. But c’mon, Disney—it is far too attenuated to be reasonable.
Disney separately claims that when Piccolo purchased Epcot tickets online in 2023, he went through a similar process. This is a much closer call. Piccolo argues that Dr. Tangsuan did not agree to the arbitration provision, but he is the plaintiff in the case.
One has to wonder, couldn’t Disney have omitted the extremely unsympathetic Disney+ argument and simply relied on the 2023 online ticket purchase?
You can read Disney’s motion here.
Is Disney a proper Defendant?
Looking beyond the headlines, Disney has raised another issue: Should the plaintiff be suing Disney—as opposed to just the restaurant?
Disney contends that Raglan Road Irish Pub is “independently owned and operated” and that its relationship to Disney is merely “a landlord and tenant.”
Piccolo counters that Disney should be held liable because the resort extensively promotes its commitment to accommodating guests with food allergies in promotional materials and that he and his wife chose Raglan Road Irish Pub in part due to these representations.
This is an interesting legal question involving Florida law to which I do not know the answer. However, if I had to venture a guess, I would say Disney is a proper Defendant – and if the allegations are true, Disney should absolutely be held responsible in addition to Raglan Road Irish Pub. No wonder Disney does not want this case going before a jury…
Here’s to hoping that Piccolo and the late Dr. Tangsuan obtain justice for this horrible and unforgivable tragedy.
