Inset: Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan (obituary). Background: Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant (YouTube/The Alter Life).
Does a Disney+ membership protect you and your loved ones from legal proceedings in the event of a suspected Disney-related death?
That’s what the mouse-themed entertainment company wants to make a court believe – and what the family of a dead woman is fighting against.
Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan died in October 2023, reportedly because her meal at a Disneyworld restaurant in Florida contained nuts and dairy products – known allergens to which she was fatally allergic.
Rather than contest the facts or litigate the merits of these allegations in court, Disney wants the case to be decided by its preferred arbitration body. That outcome is imperative in this case, the company says, because Tangsuan’s widower signed up for Disney’s streaming service – and in doing so, signed a contract agreeing that any disputes with the company would be resolved through mandatory, binding third-party arbitration.
The lawyers for the deceased woman’s estate are pleading with the judge to reject what they consider to be an “unbelievable argument.”
They say Disney’s position would mean that anyone who signs up for a free trial of Disney+ “forever waives the right to a jury trial that is available to them and any future companies of which they are a part.”
“As the previous sentence suggests, this argument borders on the surreal,” the plaintiffs argued in a 123-page brief on August 2.
As Law&Crime previously reported, Jeffrey Piccolo filed a wrongful death lawsuit in Orange County District Court in February.
Piccolo, his mother and Tangsuan dined at the Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant in Disney Springs on the evening of October 5, 2023. The trio chose the restaurant in question only because both Disney and the employees there had repeatedly and clearly stated that Ragland Road had “adequate safeguards to protect guests” from food allergies, as Tangsuan is “severely allergic to dairy and tree nuts,” the lawsuit states.
“Raglan Road advertises and explains to the public that food allergies and/or accommodations for individuals with food allergies are a top priority and that patrons/guests can consult with a chef or Cast Member trained in special diets before ordering. Plaintiff has consistently relied on these representations in selecting Disney Springs/Raglan Road for his dinner,” says the lawsuit filed against Great Irish Pubs Florida and Disney World Parks and Resorts US.
But Tangsuan died that same evening of an allergic reaction. And that seems to be undisputed.
According to a copy of the autopsy report obtained by Law&Crime, the medical examiner conducted a series of tests and reviewed Tangsuan’s medical records before determining that she died “as a result of anaphylactic shock.” The cause of death was determined to be accidental. The autopsy report shows that the doctor had “very high” levels of nut and milk allergens in her body at the time of her death.
In a motion for arbitration filed on May 31, Disney’s lawyers argued that the family’s lawsuit concerned “an allergic reaction allegedly suffered by the decedent after eating at a restaurant called Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant in Disney Springs.”
The company’s complaint then succinctly dismisses the lawsuit by claiming an “agency relationship between landlord and tenant” and argues that “the only facts supporting this theory are ‘statements’ about Raglan Road’s ‘allergen-free dining’ on Walt Disney World’s website,” noting that “Piccolo claims he relied on the website in making his decision to dine at Raglan Road.”
But as the complaint progresses, the company refrains from making any further reference to the facts of the case, as Piccolo claims in his complaint.
Much more important – and even more crucial – in this case, according to Disney, is that Piccolo “ignores that he previously opened a Disney account and agreed to arbitrate ‘all disputes’ against ‘Disney’ or its affiliates,” the motion states.
The company’s file sets out the facts it considers relevant:
Before eating at Raglan Road, Piccolo created a Disney account and used that account to buy park tickets before Eating on Raglan Road…
In November 2019, Piccolo first created a Disney account through the Disney+ website. Piccolo filled out the registration web form by providing personal information, including his email address, and created a password. Before registering the account, Piccolo had to select “Agree and Continue.” Immediately above was a disclosure informing Piccolo that “by clicking ‘Agree and Continue,’ you agree to our Subscriber Agreement.” Piccolo then selected “Agree and Continue.” The term “Subscriber Agreement” was underlined in blue text and included a hyperlink directly to the document. Piccolo also agreed to Disney’s Terms of Service. Without this, Piccolo would not have been able to create a Disney account…
After agreeing to the terms and conditions, Piccolo purchased tickets to the park and registered the deceased as his “guest.” Piccolo could not have completed the purchase without agreeing to Disney’s terms and conditions.
The company’s May 31 filing also references legal jargon from this subscription agreement, which is allegedly valid.
“Piccolo has agreed to delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator,” Disney’s motion continues. “The Disney Terms confer on the arbitrator – not a court – the ‘exclusive authority’ to resolve ‘any dispute relating to’ the ‘interpretation, applicability or enforceability’ of the arbitration provision and whether ‘any part’ is ‘void or voidable.’ It is hard to imagine a more comprehensive delegation clause.”
Earlier this month, Piccolo’s lawyers filed a response that argued against the arbitration offer in some harsh terms.
“There is simply nothing in the Disney+ subscription agreement, the only contract Mr. Piccolo allegedly agreed to when creating his Disney+ account, that would support the belief that he agreed on behalf of his wife or her estate to mediate injuries his wife sustained at a restaurant located on the property of a Disney theme park or resort where she died,” the family’s response said. “Frankly, any such belief borders on the absurd.”
Piccolo’s lawyers also say Disney is wrong about the agreement their client signed.
A footnote in the lawsuit states that the billion-dollar company “wrongly” relied on the statement “that the Disney+ Subscription Agreement is between Disney DTC and/or its affiliates” by “falsely quoting language from the Disney Terms of Service rather than the Disney+ Subscription Agreement.”
And, the plaintiffs argue, Disney is trying to enforce the arbitration agreement against the wrong entity.
From Piccolo’s answer in detail:
Second, even if WDPR had not waived its rights, it is seeking to enforce an agreement it never signed against a party that also never signed. Specifically, the plaintiff in this wrongful death case is Jeffrey Piccolo as personal representative of the estate of Kanokporn Tangsuan, not Jeffrey Piccolo personally. (While only a deceased person’s personal representative can file a wrongful death suit on behalf of the surviving relatives.) In its motion, WDPR nevertheless improperly seeks to erase this distinction by making the absurd argument that when Jeffrey Piccolo allegedly personally signed up for a free trial of Disney+ in 2019 or bought Epcot tickets in 2023, he somehow bound the nonexistent estate of Kanokporn Tangsuan (his wife, who was still alive at both times) to an arbitration agreement hidden in certain terms and conditions.
A trial in the matter is scheduled for October 2 before Judge A. James Craner of the Orange Circuit Court.
Do you have a tip we should know? (email protected)
