Disney World says man can’t sue over wife’s death linked to resort meal as he signed up for Disney+

Terms of contract to use streaming service rule out legal action, claims entertainment giant, but lawyers brand it ‘preposterous argument’

Disney World has claimed that a man whose wife died after she suffered a severe allergic reaction from dining at the theme park cannot sue because of the terms and conditions he agreed to for a free trial of its TV service.
Jeffrey Piccolo filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the entertainment giant after his wife’s fatal meal at one of the Walt Disney World Resort’s restaurants in Orlando, Florida, last year.
Mr Piccolo, a New York University doctor, alleges the restaurant did not take sufficient precautions over his wife’s dairy and nut allergies, which he claims to have told staff about several times.
Dr Kanokporn Tangsuan, Mr Piccolo’s wife, died in hospital hours after their meal at the Raglan Road Irish Pub on October 5, 2023.
According to the legal complaint, the couple chose the restaurant because Disney had said it treated accommodating patrons with food allergies as a priority.
They questioned a waiter several times to ensure that Dr Tangsuan’s food did not contain allergens, and were assured “unequivocally” that this was the case.
Roughly 45 minutes after finishing their meal, Dr Tangsuan suffered a severe allergic reaction while shopping with her mother-in-law and collapsed. She was brought to a hospital, where she was pronounced dead.
A medical examiner confirmed her death was “as a result of anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system”.
Mr Piccolo is suing Disney for more than $50,000 (£40,000) plus legal costs.
However, Disney’s lawyers have argued Mr Piccolo will have to settle outside of court via arbitration because those are the terms he agreed to when he created an account for the Disney+ streaming service in 2019.
The lawyers also claim he accepted the terms again when using his general Disney account to buy tickets to the theme park last year.
But Mr Piccolo’s lawyers hit back, labelling the arguments “preposterous” and “inane”.
They added that while Mr Piccolo agreed to the terms himself, he was now acting on behalf of his wife, who they say did not.
Jibreel Tramboo, a London-based barrister who specialises in commercial law, told the BBC that the terms agreed to as part of the Disney+ trial were a “weak argument for Disney to rely on”.
However, he suggested that the clause in the ticket purchase could be more problematic for Mr Piccolo.
“That may permit Disney to stay the case for arbitration, although there are many other threads that may prevent them going to arbitration given the delicate circumstances in this case,” he said.
The Telegraph has contacted Disney and Mr Piccolo’s lawyers for comment.