The death of Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan after a meal at Disney Springs has led to a serious legal battle between her husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, and The Walt Disney Company. The crux of the matter is a wrongful death action brought by Piccolo that Disney is attempting to dismiss by relying on an arbitration provision hidden in the terms and conditions of Disney+. This case raises several legal questions, such as the enforceability of arbitration agreements, consumer rights, and legal liabilities of corporations for offering safe services and products.
In October 2023, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, a doctor working at NYU Langone in New York City, died from anaphylactic shock after eating at Raglan Road Irish Pub located in Disney Springs. Tangsuan had a severe allergy to dairy products and nuts, told the waiters about her condition and was assured that her meal would be prepared safely. However, Tangsuan later suffered an anaphylactic shock while shopping at Disney Springs. She administered an EpiPen and was taken to a nearby hospital, where she later died.
After her death, her husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, sued Disney for wrongful death, stating that the company and the restaurant were negligent in their duty to prevent Tangsuan from coming into contact with known allergens. In response, Disney sought to have the lawsuit thrown out of court on the basis of an arbitration clause that Piccolo agreed to when he signed up for Disney+ in 2019. Disney claimed that this clause meant that all disputes between Piccolo and the company had to be settled through arbitration and not through the courts, a position that Piccolo’s lawyers have vehemently contested.
The legal issues in this case are complex and touch on several key areas of law, including contract law, consumer rights, and corporate liability.
Arbitration clauses are widespread in consumer agreements, especially in the modern world, where companies insert them into the terms of using various services such as streaming services. These clauses usually stipulate that disputes must be resolved through arbitration, which is generally faster and cheaper than a lawsuit.
However, the legal enforceability of such clauses may be controversial, especially when the terms are concealed in such a manner that the consumer cannot decipher them or even see them at all. In this case, Disney tried to use an arbitration clause from a Disney+ agreement to a wrongful death lawsuit of a different Disney affiliate, which raised many questions about the applicability and fairness of such clauses.
Disney’s claim is that by accepting the Disney+ terms and conditions, Piccolo relinquished his right to a jury trial in any matter with any Disney affiliate, including those not concerning Disney+. Piccolo’s lawyers have described this interpretation as “absurd” and have claimed that the arbitration clause cannot be applied to a wrongful death action that arose from an occurrence at Disney Springs, which has no direct connection to Disney+.
The wide-ranging application of the arbitration clause in this case could lead to companies using broad arbitration clauses in unrelated consumer agreements to protect themselves from a host of legal claims.
This case also raises questions about consumer protection and the appropriateness of arbitration clauses. Opponents claim that these clauses work in the best interest of corporations since they restrict consumers’ rights to sue. Such clauses, when used in unrelated circumstances, as Disney is seeking to do here, would only serve to weaken consumer protections further.
Arbitration clauses have sometimes been invalidated by the courts where the clauses are broad or where the clause is weighted heavily in favor of the party seeking arbitration. Whether Disney’s clause will be enforced in this case may depend on the court’s view of fairness and reasonableness when applying an arbitration agreement from a streaming service to a wrongful death claim.
The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for both the parties involved and the broader legal landscape.
If Disney manages to get the case into arbitration, this may severely restrict the company’s legal risks in this and perhaps other similar cases. Arbitration typically leads to lower awards than jury trials, and the proceedings are generally private, which could shield Disney from adverse publicity.
However, if the court dismisses Disney’s arbitration argument, the company could be exposed to a full trial, where it could be held liable for Tangsuan’s death and face substantial damages. This could also lead to more attention to Disney’s use of arbitration clauses in its consumer agreements.
This case may determine the legal effectiveness and extent of arbitration provisions in consumer agreements. If the court rules against Disney, it may set more rigid constraints on how and when companies can employ such provisions to avoid litigation.
A win for Piccolo could help consumers fight unfair arbitration clauses and thus improve the fairness of consumer agreements.
The wrongful death case against Disney raises critical legal issues that touch on the ability of courts to uphold arbitration clauses, the rights of consumers, and the obligations of corporations. It will be followed with keen interest not only because of its possible effect on Disney but also because of the broader implications it may have for consumers and corporate accountability. The result could affect how corporations draft and implement arbitration clauses and how judges understand the scope and fairness of those clauses.
If you or a loved one have been affected by similar circumstances, it is essential to seek the advice of an experienced attorney. Legal disputes involving arbitration clauses, wrongful death claims, and consumer rights can be complex and challenging to navigate. An attorney can provide guidance on your rights and help you pursue the appropriate legal remedies.
