Disney Withdraws Arbitration Claim in Allergy Death Lawsuit

Disney has reversed its decision to pursue arbitration in a wrongful death lawsuit involving a severe allergic reaction that led to the death of a woman. The case, filed by Jeffrey Piccolo, alleges that Disney and an independent restaurant at Disney World were responsible for the tragic incident.

In 2023, Piccolo’s wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, suffered a fatal allergic reaction after dining at Raglan Road, an Irish-themed pub located within Disney Springs, Orlando. Despite her known severe allergies to dairy and nuts, which had been communicated to the restaurant staff, her condition was not adequately managed, leading to her death later that day. A medical examiner confirmed that the cause of death was anaphylaxis resulting from elevated levels of dairy and nuts.

The legal conflict centers on Disney’s attempt to have the case resolved through arbitration rather than in court. Disney’s argument was based on a clause from the terms and conditions of a free Disney+ trial subscription that Piccolo had signed up for in 2019. The company claimed that this clause obligated Piccolo to settle disputes through arbitration.

However, following public criticism and backlash, Disney has decided to withdraw its request for arbitration, allowing the case to proceed in a court of law. Josh D’Amaro, a Disney executive, stated, “We believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss. As such, we’ve decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court.”

Arbitration, typically a less formal and quicker process than a courtroom trial, involves a neutral third party resolving the dispute outside of public view. Disney’s decision to abandon this route comes after legal experts and the public expressed concerns about the company’s stance.

Piccolo is seeking over $50,000 in damages from Disney, in addition to compensation for suffering, loss of income, and related medical and legal expenses. Disney contends that it had no control over the operations of Raglan Road, which is managed by an independent company. This argument has been criticized by Piccolo’s legal team, who described Disney’s attempt to invoke arbitration as “borders on the surreal.”

Legal analysts have noted that Disney’s strategy was unconventional and potentially groundbreaking in contract law. Ernest Aduwa, a partner at Stokoe Partnership Solicitors, remarked, “Disney’s argument that agreeing to terms for one product covers all interactions with the company is novel and could have far-reaching implications.”

Jibreel Tramboo, a barrister at Church Court Chambers, added that the terms from the Disney+ trial presented a “weak argument for Disney to rely on.” It remains uncertain how a judge might have ruled on the arbitration claim had it proceeded.

With Disney’s recent decision to withdraw its arbitration request, the case will now be heard in court, providing Piccolo and his family an opportunity to seek justice through the judicial system. Disney is in the process of submitting a formal filing to the court to officially retract its previous arbitration demand.