Disney has decided to withdraw its attempt to move a wrongful death lawsuit concerning the tragic death of Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan to arbitration. The case will now proceed in court, offering a public platform for the matter.
The lawsuit, initiated by Jeffrey Piccolo, seeks redress for the death of his wife, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan, who suffered a fatal allergic reaction at a Disney World restaurant in 2023. Initially, Disney attempted to invoke an arbitration clause from its Disney+ streaming service terms, which Mr. Piccolo had agreed to during a free trial in 2019, to resolve the case privately. Arbitration, known for its confidentiality and quicker resolutions, would have kept the case out of public scrutiny.
However, following significant public criticism, Disney has opted to waive its right to arbitration, allowing the lawsuit to be heard in court. In a statement to Business Matters, Josh D’Amaro, Disney’s chairman, 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.’
Legal experts had raised concerns about Disney’s initial stance, suggesting the company was ‘pushing the envelope of contract law’ by attempting to apply the Disney+ terms to an unrelated tragic incident. Jamie Cartwright, a partner at Charles Russell Speechlys, asserted that Disney’s initial position likely provoked the very public scrutiny it hoped to avoid.
The tragic incident occurred at Raglan Road, an Irish-themed pub operated by an independent entity within Disney Springs, Orlando. Mr. Piccolo alleges that the restaurant failed to appropriately address his wife’s severe allergies to dairy and nuts, despite multiple notifications. A medical examiner later confirmed that Dr. Tangsuan’s death was due to anaphylaxis triggered by elevated levels of dairy and nuts in her system.
Mr. Piccolo is seeking over $50,000 (£38,400) in damages, in addition to compensation for suffering, loss of income, and associated medical and legal costs. Disney maintains that it does not control the management or operation of the involved restaurant.
Legal analysts believe that Disney’s decision to retract its arbitration request was influenced by the negative publicity surrounding its original argument. Ernest Aduwa, a partner at Stokoe Partnership Solicitors, commented that Disney’s attempt to extend its Disney+ terms to this case was ‘potentially far-reaching’ but ultimately presented a ‘weak argument.’ Disney is in the process of formally submitting its withdrawal of the arbitration request to the court.
Disney’s decision to allow the lawsuit concerning Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan’s tragic death to proceed in court marks a significant shift in their approach, potentially influenced by public and legal scrutiny. The case will now be addressed in a public courtroom, providing a platform for the involved parties to seek justice.
