Disney Defends Itself After Wrongful Death Suit Backlash
Disney was in the headlines for all the wrong reasons yesterday when it was reported that the company claimed it could not be sued for wrongful death because the plaintiff had agreed to the Disney+ terms and conditions.
Those terms, Disney said, included a clause stating that all litigation would thereafter be handled through arbitration, not civil suit.
As a quick recap, Jeffery Piccolo is suing after his wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, died following a meal at Disney Springs’ Raglan Road Irish Pub.
Jeffrey Piccolo and Kanokporn Tangsuan. Photo: NY Times
According to the lawsuit, Dr. Tangsuan died after being served allergens that she was assured would not be present in her meal.
Disney Argued That The Case Should Be Sent to Arbitration
In a new motion filed by Disney attorneys, the company has asked that a Florida judge halt the proceedings. Instead, they want the judge to send the case to arbitration. The company’s terms of use, they argue, require that any disputes be settled through that process.
Piccolo, Disney says, agreed to these terms when he signed up for a free trial of Disney+ in 2019 and again when he bought Walt Disney World theme park tickets in 2023.
(Photo Illustration by Mateusz Slodkowski/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Disney’s assertion that they could not be sued for a wrongful death because the plaintiff signed up for a free trial of Disney caused the blowback yesterday. As it turns out, however, the headlines may not tell the whole story.
Disney Defends Itself
Responding to public criticism, Disney released a statement yesterday defending itself.
Raglan Road, the company noted, is not owned or operated by Disney. Because of this, the company says it is simply trying to defend itself from being included in the suit.
“We are deeply saddened by the family’s loss and understand their grief. Given that this restaurant is neither owned nor operated by Disney, we are merely defending ourselves against the plaintiff’s attorney’s attempt to include us in their lawsuit against the restaurant,” a Disney spokesperson said.
Two Separate Arguments
While Disney is correct in its assertion that Raglan Road is not owned or operated by the company, it should be noted that Disney’s motion to move the case to arbitration seemingly had nothing to do with that point.
Walt Disney Company. Photo: Disney
The argument was not that Disney should be excluded from the suit but that Piccolo was bound by the Disney+ terms and conditions to settle the case through arbitration.
It is certainly possible that Disney will file other motions to get itself removed from the case. So far, however, that has yet to happen.
Thanks for visiting MickeyBlog.com! Want to go to Disney? For a FREE quote on your next Disney vacation, please fill out the form below. One of the agents from MickeyTravels, a Diamond level Authorized Disney Vacation Planner, will be in touch soon! Also, Thanks for reading!
