Disney: "Our Terms of Service make us immune to this lawsuit"
-
Disney is trying to get a wrongful death lawsuit filed by a New York University doctor’s grieving husband tossed — because he signed up for the Disney+ streaming service years earlier, court papers said.
Kanokporn Tangsuan’s bereaved husband Jeffrey Piccolo is currently suing the theme park juggernaut claiming that she suffered a fatal allergic reaction shortly after eating at a Disney Springs restaurant in Florida last October.
But Disney is now claiming the $50,000 suit should be moved out of the courts because Piccolo agreed to arbitrate all disputes with the company when he first signed up for a one-month trial of the Disney+ streaming service back in 2019, court documents charge.
In the May 31 motion filed in Orange County, Fla. circuit court, Disney argued that the Disney+ subscriber agreement Piccolo signed years earlier on his PlayStation called for any dispute — with the exception of small claims — to be “resolved by individual binding arbitration.”
The company added that Piccolo agreed to similar language when he then used the “My Disney Experience” app to buy tickets to visit the Epcot theme park in September last year — a month before the ill-fated trip.
Disney has argued that both agreements required Piccolo to consent to the arbitration language before purchasing, the court filings claim.
Tangsuan, 42, died of a severe allergic reaction known as anaphylaxis just hours after dining at the Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant with her husband back on Oct. 5, the original complaint said.
The physician, who had worked Manhattan’s NYU Langone hospital, had repeatedly stressed to wait staff that she had nut and dairy allergies when she ordered scallops, onion rings, broccoli and corn fritters, according to the filing.
Soon after leaving the restaurant, Tangsuan started experiencing difficulty breathing and collapsed, court papers charge.
Even though an epi-pen was immediately administered to her, she died at a local hospital, the lawsuit said.
Piccolo is seeking more than $50,000 in damages under Florida’s wrongful death act, in addition to mental pain and suffering, loss of income and funeral expenses.
-
$60K seems really low for that type of suit.
Beyond that, doesn’t allow for ultimate appeal to the courts if either side is dissatisfied with the results?
-
$60K seems really low for that type of suit.
Beyond that, doesn’t allow for ultimate appeal to the courts if either side is dissatisfied with the results?
@LuFins-Dad said in Disney: "Our Terms of Service make us immune to this lawsuit":
$60K seems really low for that type of suit.
If you look down in the article, it says "In excess of $50K".
That's standard for most lawsuits. Every time I've been sued it had that language.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Sorry you had to go through that. It seems like people seem to think doctors have magical powers and shit doesn’t happen..
I think the headline to the story is a little misleading. It would seem like the language in the agreement when he bought the tickets to Epcot would be relevant, and it likely should go through arbitration, first, though it should be able to be taken to the courts on appeal.
-
Sorry you had to go through that. It seems like people seem to think doctors have magical powers and shit doesn’t happen..
I think the headline to the story is a little misleading. It would seem like the language in the agreement when he bought the tickets to Epcot would be relevant, and it likely should go through arbitration, first, though it should be able to be taken to the courts on appeal.
@LuFins-Dad said in Disney: "Our Terms of Service make us immune to this lawsuit":
Sorry you had to go through that. It seems like people seem to think doctors have magical powers and shit doesn’t happen..
First case I never laid eyes on the patient. One of our residents premeditated the patient, and I was scheduled to take care of him in the OR. He fell out of bed before coming downstairs.
I stil have to take half a day for a deposition.
Second one I premeditated the patient before she came to the OR. That's the last time I saw her. She had a bad complication on induction of anesthesia and ended up dying a week later. I didn't take care of her. I didn't have to be disposed for that one, but an attorney was still involved.
I think the headline to the story is a little misleading. It would seem like the language in the agreement when he bought the tickets to Epcot would be relevant, and it likely should go through arbitration, first, though it should be able to be taken to the courts on appeal.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Disney: "Our Terms of Service make us immune to this lawsuit":
$60K seems really low for that type of suit.
If you look down in the article, it says "In excess of $50K".
That's standard for most lawsuits. Every time I've been sued it had that language.
@George-K said in Disney: "Our Terms of Service make us immune to this lawsuit":
If you look down in the article, it says "In excess of $50K".
That's standard for most lawsuits.
Yes, I also notice that the $50,000 threshold is cited rather frequently in many legal complaints, especially at the initial stages of lawsuits.
-
Is arbitration usually more in favor of companies? I thought that arbitration was supposed to be an independent #3 party who looks at things.
Maybe they take the emotion out of it and juries are more sympathetic to the emotion side of things in these types of lawsuits?
-
Is arbitration usually more in favor of companies? I thought that arbitration was supposed to be an independent #3 party who looks at things.
Maybe they take the emotion out of it and juries are more sympathetic to the emotion side of things in these types of lawsuits?
@taiwan_girl said in Disney: "Our Terms of Service make us immune to this lawsuit":
Is arbitration usually more in favor of companies?
-
I think it would hinge on what constitutes the company. I'm sure Disney+ is a separate legal entity wholly owned by the Disney conglomerate, as may be the app.
But in any event, this is the least of Disney's PR worries. Overselling and overpricing the parks and their wokeness are far larger problems.
-
@George-K said in Disney: "Our Terms of Service make us immune to this lawsuit":
Everyone keeps claiming it was the Disney + waiver that Disney was arguing to take it to arbitration. It wasn’t, it was the waiver that was in the park ticket purchase, the waiver that was in the park app he downloaded, and more.
-
@George-K said in Disney: "Our Terms of Service make us immune to this lawsuit":
Everyone keeps claiming it was the Disney + waiver that Disney was arguing to take it to arbitration. It wasn’t, it was the waiver that was in the park ticket purchase, the waiver that was in the park app he downloaded, and more.
@LuFins-Dad said in Disney: "Our Terms of Service make us immune to this lawsuit":
Everyone keeps claiming it was the Disney + waiver that Disney was arguing to take it to arbitration. It wasn’t, it was the waiver that was in the park ticket purchase, the waiver that was in the park app he downloaded, and more.
In late May, Disney's lawyers filed a motion asking the circuit court to order Piccolo to arbitrate the case — with them and a neutral third party in private, as opposed to publicly in court — and to pause the legal proceedings in the meantime.
Arbitration is generally considered a more efficient and cost-effective method of resolving disputes than litigation, and Disney said explicitly in court documents that the "main benefit of arbitration is avoiding heavy litigation costs."
The reason it says Piccolo must be compelled to arbitrate? A clause in the terms and conditions he signed off on when he created a Disney+ account for a monthlong trial in 2019.
Family files lawsuit in case of teen who died after eating spicy chip
Those terms of use — which users must acknowledge to create an account — state 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."Disney says Piccolo agreed to similar language again when purchasing park tickets online in September 2023. Whether he actually read the fine print at any point, it adds, is "immaterial."
"Piccolo ignores that he previously created a Disney account and agreed to arbitrate 'all disputes' against 'The Walt Disney Company or its affiliates' arising 'in contract, tort, warranty, statute, regulation, or other legal or equitable basis,'" the motion reads, arguing the language is broad enough to cover Piccolo's claims.
