Disney has reversed its stance in a wrongful death lawsuit brought by a widower whose wife died after dining at a Disney World restaurant, announcing that it would waive the arbitration that a man claimed he agreed to when he signed up for Disney+.
Disney had previously argued that the lawsuit, filed in February by Jeffrey J. Piccolo, should be dismissed and resolved through individual arbitration, citing terms Piccolo agreed to when he signed up for a free trial of the Disney+ streaming service and purchased tickets to the parks.
In a statement shared with NBC News on Tuesday, Disney said that given the confidential nature of the case, it has “decided to waive its right to arbitration and pursue this matter in court.”
“At Disney, we strive to prioritize humanity above all else, and in unique circumstances like this, we believe the situation requires a sensitive approach in order to achieve a swift resolution for a family that has experienced such a devastating loss,” said Josh D’Amaro, chairman of Disney Experiences.
Piccolo’s wife, Dr. Kanokpong Thanhsuan, died after eating food containing the allergen at Raglan Road Irish Pub & Restaurant at Disney World on October 5. The restaurant is not owned or operated by Disney but is a tenant in the Disney Springs area of the amusement park in Orlando, Florida.
According to the lawsuit, the family asked repeatedly whether Tang Xiang’s allergies could be accommodated and was promised that they could. Tang Xiang suffered a severe allergic reaction and died at a local hospital, the lawsuit says.
According to the medical examiner’s autopsy report cited in the lawsuit, Tang Shan died of anaphylactic shock and had high levels of nuts and dairy in her system. Her death was ruled an accident.
Piccolo filed a lawsuit against the restaurant and Disney under Florida’s wrongful death statute, seeking more than $50,000 in damages.
Disney lawyers argued in May that Piccolo agreed to Disney’s “Terms of Use” when he subscribed to Disney+ and purchased tickets to Walt Disney Parks, which states that any disputes between an individual and Disney, except for small claims actions, “are subject to a class action waiver and must be resolved by binding arbitration on an individual basis.”
In a response in early August, Piccolo’s lawyers called Disney’s arguments to dismiss the lawsuit “unfair” and asked the court not to force arbitration.
Piccolo’s attorney, Brian Denney, told NBC News on Tuesday, “My client will continue to pursue justice at the court level for his beloved wife. He also hopes that recent events will raise awareness of the millions of people of all ages and walks of life who suffer from food allergies. This awareness will help bring about positive changes in corporate food preparation policies and procedures.”
Denney also criticized Disney’s reliance on arbitration clauses.
“The Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial is a bedrock of our justice system and must be protected and upheld. Attempts by companies like Disney to circumvent jury trial should be viewed with skepticism,” Denney said.
Arbitration agreements are very common in corporate terms and conditions across multiple industries.
“Incorporating arbitration agreements into click-through contracts is such a common practice that in the past week alone, most people reading this article have probably signed such an agreement without even knowing it,” said NBC News legal analyst Danny Ceballos.
“Arbitration agreements almost always favor large corporations and disadvantage injured plaintiffs who want to sue, which is why they’re so popular with corporations,” he said.
“The law says that unless an arbitration agreement is fraudulent, we have a preference to enforce that agreement,” Ceballos said. “Often times, people don’t remember or care that they clicked and signed an arbitration agreement when they signed up for some service, but as long as that person was clearly notified at the time they signed one of these agreements, that agreement will be enforceable.”
