Column: Disney's bid to arbitrate husband's wrongful death suit has a chance
The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.
By Jenna Greene
Aug 16 (Reuters) -While Disney might not be winning any public relations awards with its push to move a wrongful death lawsuit brought by a widower in Florida out of the courts and into arbitration, lawyers for the entertainment giant are not without precedent in arguing the attempt is warranted.
Disney lawyers from White & Case say a lawsuit by the husband of a woman who died last year from an allergic reaction after eating at a restaurant in the Disney Springs shopping complex belongs in arbitration because he signed up for a trial of streaming service Disney+ in 2019.
In doing so, the defense asserts, Jeffrey Piccolo agreed to terms of use that include binding arbitration of “all disputes” involving The Walt Disney Company or its affiliates – never mind that a personal injury claim stemming from allergen-tainted food has little connection to, say, watching a Marvel movie on your television.
Many social media users on X have reacted with outrage, calling Disney’s motion to compel arbitration “ridiculous” “abhorrent” and “unbelievable,” among other choice insults.
But that doesn’t mean it won’t succeed.
Experts tell me the suit may hinge on how broadly the judge interprets the arbitration agreement.
A Disney spokesperson in a statement said, “We are deeply saddened by the family’s loss and understand their grief.”
The spokesperson also said the restaurant where the woman, who was severely allergic to nuts and dairy, dined “is neither owned nor operated by Disney.”
Outside counsel Raoul Cantero, a former Florida Supreme Court justice who heads White & Case’s Miami office, did not respond to a request for comment.
The case began when Piccolo, his wife Kanokporn Tangsuan (who was a doctor) and her mother ate at Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant on Oct. 5, 2023, allegedly selecting the eatery because both Disney and Raglan advertised that it made accommodating people with food allergies a top priority.
Despite alleged assurances from the waiter that Tangsuan’s order was allergen-free, she had an acute allergic reaction shortly after eating battered sea scallops, broccoli and corn fritters, onion rings and vegan shepherd's pie, according to the complaint in Orange County court. She died of anaphylaxis from elevated levels of nut and dairy in her system, the complaint said.
Legal counsel for Raglan Road from Lewis Brisbois did not respond to a request for comment.
In its initial response in April to the complaint, Disney made no mention of arbitration, instead arguing it was not liable because it has no control over Raglan’s operations or management and merely serves as its landlord.
In an under-the-radar filing in late May, Disney offered a new defense: that the complaint is subject to arbitration based on Piccolo’s Disney+ subscription, as well as his use of the company’s website in 2023 to buy theme part tickets.
Corporations tend to favor arbitration in part based on an assumption that professional jurists presiding over the matter will take a more dispassionate view of evidence and damages than jurors swayed by their emotions.
Piccolo’s lawyer Brian Denney, who did not respond to a request for comment, blasted Disney’s “surreal” argument in court papers earlier this month in a filing that's attracted widespread media coverage.
If Disney's position is accepted, Denney said, it would mean that any person who signs up for Disney+, even if only for a short time, “will have forever waived the right to a jury trial” against any and all Disney entities.
Implausible as that may sound, the notion is not without precedent. For example, as my Reuters colleague Alison Frankel reported, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2020 held in Mey v. DirecTV that a customer’s contract with AT&T signed long before AT&T acquired DirecTV nonetheless compelled the plaintiff to arbitrate an unrelated claim against the satellite company.
On the other hand, the 9th Circuit came to the opposite conclusion a month later. The San Francisco-based court said it would be “absurd” to make customers arbitrate all disputes with any corporate entity that happens to be acquired by AT&T years or even decades in the future.
In the Disney case, Matthew Adler, a Troutman Pepper partner and author of the law school textbook “Commercial Arbitration: Cases, Problems and Practice,” said that to him, it’s “obvious that an arbitration clause exists.” Adler is not involved in the Disney case.
“I am less positive about the reach of the clause itself,” he said via email. That is, can the arbitration agreement “be interpreted to reach far beyond the streaming services” to cover a wrongful death claim at a restaurant? Adler suggested that deposition testimony and other documents may help the court reach an answer.
A recent decision by a Texas court of appeals involving a bank customer and a broken chair offers another example of courts taking an expansive view of arbitration clauses.
In that case, arbitration scholar Imre Stephen Szalai, a professor at Loyola University New Orleans College of Law, said via email, a customer sitting in the bank’s lobby in a chair that suddenly collapsed filed a personal injury lawsuit against the bank. The Beaumont-based court dismissed the case based on the arbitration clause found in the terms governing the customer’s bank account.
Other courts, however, take a "nexus" approach, Szalai said, and examine the extent to which the claim has a connection with the arbitration agreement. In the Disney case, a judge may find that “the purpose of the Disney Terms of Use was to govern online, intellectual property rights, but not a visit to the restaurant.”
“Disney does not have a ‘slam dunk,’ sure-win case,” he added.
Reporting by Jenna Greene
면책조항: XM Group 회사는 체결 전용 서비스와 온라인 거래 플랫폼에 대한 접근을 제공하여, 개인이 웹사이트에서 또는 웹사이트를 통해 이용 가능한 콘텐츠를 보거나 사용할 수 있도록 허용합니다. 이에 대해 변경하거나 확장할 의도는 없습니다. 이러한 접근 및 사용에는 다음 사항이 항상 적용됩니다: (i) 이용 약관, (ii) 위험 경고, (iii) 완전 면책조항. 따라서, 이러한 콘텐츠는 일반적인 정보에 불과합니다. 특히, 온라인 거래 플랫폼의 콘텐츠는 금융 시장에서의 거래에 대한 권유나 제안이 아닙니다. 금융 시장에서의 거래는 자본에 상당한 위험을 수반합니다.
온라인 거래 플랫폼에 공개된 모든 자료는 교육/정보 목적으로만 제공되며, 금융, 투자세 또는 거래 조언 및 권고, 거래 가격 기록, 금융 상품 또는 원치 않는 금융 프로모션의 거래 제안 또는 권유를 포함하지 않으며, 포함해서도 안됩니다.
이 웹사이트에 포함된 모든 의견, 뉴스, 리서치, 분석, 가격, 기타 정보 또는 제3자 사이트에 대한 링크와 같이 XM이 준비하는 콘텐츠 뿐만 아니라, 제3자 콘텐츠는 일반 시장 논평으로서 "현재" 기준으로 제공되며, 투자 조언으로 여겨지지 않습니다. 모든 콘텐츠가 투자 리서치로 해석되는 경우, 투자 리서치의 독립성을 촉진하기 위해 고안된 법적 요건에 따라 콘텐츠가 의도되지 않았으며, 준비되지 않았다는 점을 인지하고 동의해야 합니다. 따라서, 관련 법률 및 규정에 따른 마케팅 커뮤니케이션이라고 간주됩니다. 여기에서 접근할 수 있는 앞서 언급한 정보에 대한 비독립 투자 리서치 및 위험 경고 알림을 읽고, 이해하시기 바랍니다.
