Disney Drops Bid to Dismiss Wrongful Death Lawsuit

Jeffrey Piccolo filed the lawsuit in February, seeking more than $50,000 in the wrongful death of his wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, after she died from a severe allergic reaction following a meal at Disney World in 2023.
Disney argued the case belonged in arbitration and Piccolo could not sue because of a clause he agreed to when signing up for a trial of the Disney+ streaming service back in 2019.
In addition to the terms and conditions, the company said Piccolo also agreed when he signed up for an account on Disney’s website and app in order to purchase the couple’s tickets for their visit.
“With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, 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.”
In a statement to The Epoch Times, lawyers for Piccolo said their client will continue to pursue justice on behalf of his wife and any attempts by major corporations, like Disney, to avoid jury trials should be “looked at with skepticism.”
“Although Disney has withdrawn its motion, the arbitration clauses they relied upon in their motion still exist on their various platforms (i.e. streaming services; entrance tickets to Disney’s parks, etc.). This potentially puts other people injured by Disney’s negligence at risk of facing a similar legal challenge,” said civil trial attorney Brian R. Denney.
Additionally, Piccolo hopes through this process to raise awareness for the millions of other people of all ages who suffer from food allergies and in doing so “help effectuate positive change to corporate food preparation policies and procedures.”
Not long after finishing their dinner, Tangsuan had trouble breathing and collapsed despite self-administering an epi-pen. She later died at the hospital.
According to the lawsuit, both Piccolo and his wife repeatedly questioned the waiter to confirm the food they were ordering was allergen free and upon being delivered the food items were once again guaranteed that was the case.
The family picked the restaurant based on its website advertising that accommodating people with food allergies was a “top priority” and relied on those representations when visiting establishments throughout their trip.
Disney argued it had no control over the management or operation of the restaurant and merely serves as its landlord.
Representatives for both the Disney World resort and Raglan restaurant did not immediately respond to a request for comment.