Disney has waived its right to arbitration in a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Jeffrey Piccolo, whose wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, tragically died last year after suffering a severe allergic reaction at a Disney Springs restaurant. The case has garnered widespread attention due to Disney’s initial legal stance, which sought to dismiss the lawsuit based on an arbitration clause linked to a Disney-Plus subscription.
Dr. Tangsuan, a 42-year-old doctor at NYU Langone on Long Island, died of anaphylaxis in October after consuming a meal at a Disney Springs restaurant. According to the lawsuit, Tangsuan had informed the restaurant staff about her severe nut and dairy allergies and was repeatedly assured that the vegan options she ordered were safe. Despite these assurances, she suffered a fatal allergic reaction.
Initially, Disney attempted to have the lawsuit dismissed, arguing that Piccolo, her husband, had agreed to settle disputes through arbitration when he signed up for a free month of Disney-Plus years ago. Disney’s legal team contended that this arbitration agreement should apply to the wrongful death claim, thereby preventing the case from proceeding in court.
However, Disney has now reversed its position, deciding to waive its right to arbitration. This change allows the lawsuit to move forward in court, where Piccolo will seek to hold Disney accountable for his wife’s death. The waiver of arbitration marks a pivotal moment in the case, as it removes a significant legal hurdle that could have prevented the lawsuit from being fully heard in a judicial setting.
Piccolo’s legal team argues that the assurances given to Dr. Tangsuan about the safety of her meal were grossly negligent, leading to her untimely death. They contend that Disney must be held responsible for the fatal incident, which could have been avoided with proper care and attention to her dietary restrictions.
The case is expected to bring heightened scrutiny to how Disney and other major corporations handle food allergies and customer safety, particularly in the context of legal agreements that extend beyond the original intent, such as a streaming service subscription.
As the case proceeds, it will likely become a focal point in discussions about consumer rights, corporate responsibility, and the legal complexities surrounding arbitration clauses in unexpected contexts.
