Walt Disney Parks and Resorts has backed off its motion to seek arbitration in a wrongful death case filed in Orange County based on a widower’s alleged agreement to arbitration terms after signing up for a Disney+ account in 2019.
The lawsuit was filed in the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court in February by Jeffrey Piccolo, whose wife, physician Kanokporn Tangsuan, died last year after dining at the Raglan Road Irish Pub in the Disney Springs shopping and entertainment venue. Tangsuan collapsed from anaphylaxis after she consumed dairy products and nuts at the restaurant, despite a server’s assurances that the meal contained no allergens, according to the original lawsuit.
A response to Disney’s arbitration motion by Piccolo’s attorney characterized the company’s motion as inane and surreal. Disney had argued that Piccolo's decision to sign up for a free trial of a Disney+ streaming account in 2019 and to purchase Epcot tickets last year on a Disney website binds his wife’s estate to an arbitration agreement contained in terms and conditions of the purchase agreements.
Disney gave notice in court papers filed on Aug. 20 that it was withdrawing its motion to compel arbitration and delay court proceedings. That May 31 motion alleged that Piccolo had agreed to arbitrate all disputes against Disney or its affiliates, including the wrongful death claim.
Piccolo’s West Palm Beach attorney, Brian Denney, did not respond to a request for comment. But Len Testa, co-author of “The Unofficial Guide to Walt Disney World” and a co-host of the Disney Dish podcast, said the initial push for arbitration was likely a move to probe the legal environment within the district court.
“People outside the legal profession read stories like this Disney+ terms-and-conditions case and question everything from the character of the individual lawyers to the very function of the legal system itself,” Testa told the Florida Record in an email. “The thing to remember is that a lawyer's duty is to present the most vigorous defense possible for their client. Sometimes that includes pursuing previously untested theories about how different parts of the law interact.”
Such attorney actions may resemble the approach of "Does this spaghetti stick against that wall?" he said, but Testa added that there's more to the story.
“Seasoned lawyers will probably admit that things like a judge's caseload, their past interactions with each side's lawyers and their career ambitions – none of which has anything to do with the specific laws in a specific case – can influence how a case is handled,” he said.
In the wrongful death case, one component of a vigorous defense strategy may be to see if the judge, potentially facing a heavy caseload, would accept the arbitration claim and dismiss the case simply to get it off his “to-do list,” according to Testa.
“The thing to remember is that judges are human beings who have work quotas and good-and-bad workplace relationships, just like the rest of us,” he said. “A lot of people pay a lot of money for lawyers who know those things too. And I think that's what happened here.”
The chairman of Disney Experiences, Josh D’Amaro, provided a more compassionate explanation about why the company opted not to press for arbitration.
“At Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations," D'Amaro said in a statement emailed to the Record. "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.”
The plaintiff is seeking damages he suffered as a result of his wife’s death, including mental pain and suffering, loss of companionship, medical and funeral expenses, and loss of income.