Disney says husband can’t sue over wife’s wrongful death – because he signed up to Disney+ trial
The lawyer representing the family has said this is ‘absurd’ and ‘preposterous’
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Disney has claimed a husband cannot sue the company over his wife’s wrongful death because he signed up for a trial of the Disney+ streaming service.
Jeffrey Piccolo is suing the entertainment giant for $50,000 (£38,900) after his wife died from a severe allergic reaction after eating at a restaurant in Disney Springs, Florida, in October 2023.
Court documents claim Tangsuan, a physician at NYU Langone Hospital, suffered a fatal allergic reaction after eating at a Disney Springs restaurant.
Eating at the Raglan Road Irish Pub & Restaurant in October with her husband and mother-in-law, Jackie Piccolo, court documents claim she told staff of her severe nut and dairy allergies multiple times, with them reassuring her they could make some of the food allergen-free.
They got confirmation that the food would be safe to eat numerous times, the lawsuit said: “When the waiter returned with [Tangsuan’s] food, some of the items did not have allergen-free flags in them and [Tangsuan] and [Piccolo] once again questioned the waiter who, once again, guaranteed the food being delivered to [Tangsuan] was allergen free.”
Shortly after finishing their meals, Piccolo went back to their hotel room while his wife and mother went shopping.
After splitting up to go into different stores with the intention of meeting up afterwards, Tangsuan collapsed on a shop floor struggling for breath, around 45 minutes after having eaten.
She self-administered an epi-pen before she was rushed to hospital, but tragically died. According to the legal suit, her death was confirmed by a medical examiner “as a result of anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system.”
The streaming giant is now arguing that the terms of use Mr Piccolo agreed to when creating his Disney account in 2019 means they have to settle any legal disputes with the company only via arbitration, meaning any dispute is overseen by a neutral third party and not a judge.
They say the man agreed to these terms when he activated a one-month free trial on the Walt Disney World app five years ago. Disney also says Mr Piccolo agreed to a similar language again when purchasing park tickets online in September 2023.
The lawyer representing the family has said this is “absurd” and “preposterous.” They say that Disney’s case “is based on the incredible argument that any person who signs up for an account, even free trials that are not extended beyond the trial period, will have forever waived the right to a jury trial”.
They also argue that Mr Piccolo agreed to their terms of use for himself, but he is now acting on behalf of his late wife, who never agreed to the terms.
Lawyer Brian Denney wrote in a filing: “The notion that terms agreed to by a consumer when creating a Disney+ free trial account would forever bar that consumer’s right to a jury trial in any dispute with any Disney affiliate or subsidiary is so outrageously unreasonable and unfair as to shock the judicial conscience.”
Lawyers for Walt Disney Parks and Resorts have also emphasized that the Raglan Road pub is “an independently owned restaurant” and said that its relationship to Disney is that of “a landlord and tenant.”
“We are deeply saddened by the family’s loss and understand their grief,” said a Disney spokesperson to PEOPLE.
“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.”
The court has scheduled a hearing on Disney’s motion for 2 October.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments