For many, Disney World is the ultimate destination. A place where dreams come true and magic is around every corner. Families from around the globe flock to these iconic theme parks, eager to experience the joy, adventure, and magical wonder that Disney promises.
Whether it’s meeting the characters, enjoying the rides, tasting the wide variety of food, or enjoying the enchanting Disney atmosphere, Disney World is generally a place where magical memories are made.
But for one man, a visit to Disney World turned into nothing short of a nightmare. Jeffrey Piccolo never imagined that a day meant for creating memories would end with the loss of his beloved wife. What was supposed to be the happiest place on earth led him into a legal battle that challenged the very idea of what Disney represents.
Can You Sue Disney for a Loved One’s Death?
Jeffrey Piccolo filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Disney and the owners of the Raglan Road Irish Pub after his wife tragically passed away in 2023. She suffered a severe allergic reaction after eating at a restaurant within the Disney World complex. But now, Disney is arguing that Mr Piccolo cannot sue them due to terms he agreed to when signing up for a free trial of Disney+ in 2019.
Say what?
The Tragic Incident
According to the lawsuit, his wife dined at Raglan Road Irish Pub in Disney Springs in October 2023, where she ordered vegan fritters, scallops, onion rings, and a vegan shepherd’s pie.
Before the food was served, Mr Piccolo informed the waitstaff of his wife’s severe allergies to nuts and dairy, specifically requesting allergen-free food. The waiter assured them that the food was allergen-free, even though some items lacked allergen-free indicators.
Despite self-administering an EpiPen during the allergic reaction, Ms Tangsuan tragically passed away in the hospital. A medical examiner later confirmed that she died from anaphylaxis caused by elevated levels of dairy and nuts in her system.
Terms and Conditions Apply
Disney is now fighting the lawsuit, stating that when Mr Piccolo signed up for Disney+ in 2019 and again when he bought theme park tickets in 2023, he agreed to terms that require disputes to be settled through arbitration. Arbitration is a private process, often quicker and less costly than a court trial, where a neutral third party helps resolve disputes.
In a statement, Disney expressed their sadness over the family’s loss but pointed out that Raglan Road is not owned or operated by Disney. They believe they should not be included in the lawsuit against the restaurant and are defending themselves based on the Terms of Service Mr Piccolo agreed to when creating his Disney account.
“The Terms of Use, which were provided with the Subscriber Agreement, include a binding arbitration clause,” the company wrote in its motion.
“The first page of the Subscriber Agreement states, in all capital letters, that ‘Any dispute between You and Us, Except for Small Claims, is subject to a class action waiver and must be resolved by individual binding arbitration.”
Legal Arguments and Challenges
Mr Piccolo’s lawyer, Brian Dennery, filed a response arguing that it was “absurd” to suggest that over 150 million Disney+ subscribers had waived their rights to sue the company, especially when their cases have no connection to the streaming platform.
“The idea that terms agreed upon when creating a Disney+ free trial account would permanently strip a consumer’s right to a jury trial in any dispute with any Disney affiliate or subsidiary is outrageously unreasonable and unfair,” Mr Dennery stated.
“This court should not enforce such an agreement.”
However, Disney countered that it was “immaterial” whether Mr Piccolo had reviewed the service terms, emphasising that the arbitration clause “covers ‘all disputes,’ including those involving The Walt Disney Company or its affiliates.”
While Disney expressed they were “deeply saddened” by the family’s loss, they clarified that the Irish pub in question was neither owned nor operated by the company. It just happened to be inside Disney World. Further, Disney stressed that its involvement in the litigation does not impact the plaintiff’s claims against the restaurant.
“We are simply defending ourselves against the plaintiff’s attorney’s attempt to include us in their lawsuit against the restaurant,” – Disney
Some legal experts believe Disney’s argument is pushing the boundaries of contract law. They question whether a clause meant for a streaming service can be applied to a case involving a death at a theme park. The idea that accepting terms for one product could cover all interactions with the company is new and could have far-reaching implications.
Peter Giattino, cousin to Dr Tangsuan, said: “She was stolen from him, and now in effect what Disney’s doing is trying to steal his day in court. That’s a fundamental right that we all have.
“This would create just a horrific and horrible precedent if you open up your phone and look at all the services and things you subscribe to.”
What’s Next?
Mr Piccolo wants his case to be heard by a jury in a court of law, but a Florida judge will decide Disney’s motion to move the case to arbitration in October. If the case goes to arbitration, it will be handled privately, which Disney might prefer to avoid the public scrutiny that comes with a wrongful death lawsuit. However, one could argue that they are already facing public scrutiny for the incident, thanks to social media.
Arbitration is often seen as a quicker, more confidential way to resolve disputes. But for Mr Piccolo, the fight is about more than just speed or privacy; it’s about holding those responsible accountable for the tragic loss of his wife.
The case between Jeffrey Piccolo and Disney raises important questions about the power of terms and conditions, especially when they are linked to something as tragic as the death of a loved one. As the legal battle unfolds, it will be up to the courts to decide whether Disney’s defence holds up or if Mr Piccolo will have his day in court.
