When you agree to the terms and conditions of signing up to a new TV service, you probably think you’re safe to assume that the contract to which you are agreeing relates only to your experience with the TV service. But you’d be wrong.
Reports revealed in recent days how a man whose wife died from an allergic reaction while dining at a Disney World theme park found that he was unable to sue the company that operates it because of the terms and conditions he agreed to when signing up for a free trial of Disney Plus.
Jeffrey Piccolo’s wife, Dr Kanokporn Tangsuan, died in the hospital hours after she suffered a severe allergic reaction while eating at a restaurant at the Walt Disney World resort in Orlando, Florida. The incident occurred at an Irish Pub in the resort on October 5, 2023. Piccolo alleges in a wrongful death lawsuit that the restaurant did not take appropriate precautions to cater to his wife’s nut and dairy allergies. Piccolo alleges that he repeatedly told servers and other members of staff about his wife’s allergies, and that he was assured “unequivocally” that they had listened to his concerns and took appropriate action, but argues that they didn’t do what they said they would.
Writing via his lawyers, Piccolo also described how the couple specifically chose to vacation at the Disney resort because the company said that they take proper precautions with customers who have food allergies.
Piccolo recounted how some 45 minutes after finishing their meal, his wife began to suffer a severe reaction while she was shopping with her mother-in-law. The reaction was so extreme that she collapsed and was taken to a hospital – but she was pronounced dead soon after.
In response to the death, Piccolo filed a suit against Disney for £40,000 GBP, which is a little over $50,000 – but it turned out that he can’t proceed with the lawsuit because of Disney Plus agreement he signed in 2019. While the figure for the suit seems low, lawyers noted that it is a mere technicality and that Piccolo is asking for substantially more once the case reaches (if it ever does) the circuit court in Florida.
Lawyers argued that the matter must now be settled out of court via arbitration because of the Disney Plus agreement. Attorneys representing Disney say that Piccolo accepted the terms not only when he signed up for the streaming service but also when he purchased tickets via his Disney account last year.
A spokesperson for Disney has defended the shocking decision for the company to attempt to get the case thrown out on the basis of the contract, arguing that they are “merely defending [themselves]” because the restaurant on their property was technically not operated by their company.
What do you think? Is it really right that Piccolo can’t sue because of a lengthy agreement he signed, likely without even reading, before he even stepped foot on Disney property?
