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
متعلقہ اثاثے
تازہ ترين خبريں
دستبرداری: XM Group کے ادارے ہماری آن لائن تجارت کی سہولت تک صرف عملدرآمد کی خدمت اور رسائی مہیا کرتے ہیں، کسی شخص کو ویب سائٹ پر یا اس کے ذریعے دستیاب کانٹینٹ کو دیکھنے اور/یا استعمال کرنے کی اجازت دیتا ہے، اس پر تبدیل یا توسیع کا ارادہ نہیں ہے ، اور نہ ہی یہ تبدیل ہوتا ہے یا اس پر وسعت کریں۔ اس طرح کی رسائی اور استعمال ہمیشہ مشروط ہوتا ہے: (i) شرائط و ضوابط؛ (ii) خطرہ انتباہات؛ اور (iii) مکمل دستبرداری۔ لہذا اس طرح کے مواد کو عام معلومات سے زیادہ کے طور پر فراہم کیا جاتا ہے۔ خاص طور پر، براہ کرم آگاہ رہیں کہ ہماری آن لائن تجارت کی سہولت کے مندرجات نہ تو کوئی درخواست ہے، اور نہ ہی فنانشل مارکیٹ میں کوئی لین دین داخل کرنے کی پیش کش ہے۔ کسی بھی فنانشل مارکیٹ میں تجارت میں آپ کے سرمائے کے لئے ایک خاص سطح کا خطرہ ہوتا ہے۔
ہماری آن لائن تجارتی سہولت پر شائع ہونے والے تمام مٹیریل کا مقصد صرف تعلیمی/معلوماتی مقاصد کے لئے ہے، اور اس میں شامل نہیں ہے — اور نہ ہی اسے فنانشل، سرمایہ کاری ٹیکس یا تجارتی مشورے اور سفارشات؛ یا ہماری تجارتی قیمتوں کا ریکارڈ؛ یا کسی بھی فنانشل انسٹرومنٹ میں لین دین کی پیشکش؛ یا اسکے لئے مانگ؛ یا غیر متنازعہ مالی تشہیرات پر مشتمل سمجھا جانا چاہئے۔
کوئی تھرڈ پارٹی کانٹینٹ، نیز XM کے ذریعہ تیار کردہ کانٹینٹ، جیسے: راۓ، خبریں، تحقیق، تجزیہ، قیمتیں اور دیگر معلومات یا اس ویب سائٹ پر مشتمل تھرڈ پارٹی کے سائٹس کے لنکس کو "جیسے ہے" کی بنیاد پر فراہم کیا جاتا ہے، عام مارکیٹ کی تفسیر کے طور پر، اور سرمایہ کاری کے مشورے کو تشکیل نہ دیں۔ اس حد تک کہ کسی بھی کانٹینٹ کو سرمایہ کاری کی تحقیقات کے طور پر سمجھا جاتا ہے، آپ کو نوٹ کرنا اور قبول کرنا ہوگا کہ یہ کانٹینٹ سرمایہ کاری کی تحقیق کی آزادی کو فروغ دینے کے لئے ڈیزائن کردہ قانونی تقاضوں کے مطابق نہیں ہے اور تیار نہیں کیا گیا ہے، اسی طرح، اس پر غور کیا جائے گا بطور متعلقہ قوانین اور ضوابط کے تحت مارکیٹنگ مواصلات۔ براہ کرم یقینی بنائیں کہ آپ غیر آزاد سرمایہ کاری سے متعلق ہماری اطلاع کو پڑھ اور سمجھ چکے ہیں۔ مذکورہ بالا معلومات کے بارے میں تحقیق اور رسک وارننگ ، جس تک رسائی یہاں حاصل کی جا سکتی ہے۔
