“Surreal”: Disney World Attempts to Hide Park Death, Guests Revolt

Disney World has been caught trying to sweep a tragic allergy-related death out of the public eye, and the public is shocked, betrayed, and furious that the Mouse House would be so callous.

Disney World “Would Likely Be Harmed in the Process”

In October 2023, Dr. Kanokporn Tangsuan visited the Walt Disney World Resort with her spouse, Jeffrey Piccolo, and mother-in-law, Jackie Piccolo. The trio visited the Raglan Road Irish Pub at Disney Springs in Lake Buena Vista. Despite reportedly taking significant pains to be sure of avoiding allergens in her food, Dr. Tangsuan passed away shortly after their meal. The New York Times reports:

“An autopsy by the District 9 medical examiner’s office in Orlando, Fla., determined that the cause of death was anaphylaxis, or a severe allergic reaction. The autopsy report notes Dr. Tangsuan’s reported history of allergies to dairy products and peanuts and said that she had used an EpiPen before becoming unresponsive. The manner of death was accidental, the report says.”

Her husband is now suing Walt Disney Parks and Resorts and Great Irish Pubs Florida Inc/Raglan Road  (an independent business partnered with Disney) for damages in excess of $50,000. Although that might seem comparatively small in comparison to the kind of multimillion-dollar lawsuits that the company often faces, it is likely that that specific dollar amount was chosen to exceed a certain level of court-required damages. Jeffrey Piccolo, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Kanokporn Tangsuan, is claiming that Disney has “control and/or right of control” over the Raglan Road restaurant and its food allergy training and protocol. His attorney, Brian Denney, has released a statement that Piccolo hopes the case will “raise awareness in the hopes that other establishments will take customer allergies seriously.”

The Seattle Times says of the events that led to Dr. Tangsuan’s death, “Around 8 p.m., after finishing dinner, the doctor and her mother-in-law went shopping separately at Disney Springs, while Piccolo returned to their room with the leftover food, the lawsuit said. About 45 minutes later, Tangsuan was having difficulty breathing when she entered Planet Hollywood and collapsed to the floor. The lawsuit said she had self-administered an epi-pen while suffering from the allergic reaction…The doctor died at the hospital.” Related: Judge Terminated in Disney Relocation Lawsuit Following Explosive Conflict of Interest Discovery However, it is what happened after the tragic death that has Disney World fans up in arms. In a motion filed in Orange County, Florida, on May 31, Disney argued to have the lawsuit dropped from court and demanded that it go to private arbitration. According to the filing, Jeffrey Piccolo had previously signed up for a “Disney account” and waived his rights to a trial jury; instead, the company says, it must go to a private, non-public mediation that would essentially amount to it being kept out of the public eye. The filing specifically this move is necessary because “[Walt Disney Parks and Resorts] would likely be harmed in the process” of going to trial. Given that a woman is dead because of a meal at Disney Springs, claiming that a multi-billion company could be harmed by having to go to court is not a way to look like the good guy here.

While Disney might have thought it would benefit the company to get the wrongful death case out of public documentation as quickly as possible, that has backfired in a big way. The filing is somewhat ambiguous as to the nature of the “Disney account” in question, but Piccolo’s lawyer has claimed that the company is saying that because he signed up for a free trial Disney+ streaming account, the terms and services claim he has given up all legal rights to sue in court. As one might expect, this is causing Disney+ subscribers and Disney World Guests to explode in fury and shame the company for what is being perceived as a cold legal move to quash a lawsuit.

“Disney Villains Are Real”

Social media users are criticizing Disney online, calling this attempt to push the Tangsuan death lawsuit into private arbitration an underhanded and callous attempt to wield its legal power against a grieving widower. Twitter user @jilliancyork posted regarding the case, saying, “Disney villains are real.”

https://twitter.com/jilliancyork/status/1823670694304944268

@TheMovieVampire got more into the emerging story, saying, “Disturbing story. Apparantly there’s fine print in the Disney+ TOS forcing people into arbitration over literally anything the company does including killing your spouse by serving them food they’re allergic to after you told them about the allergy.”

https://twitter.com/TheMovieVampire/status/1823559811063050306

@Big_rich1987 questioned how this might affect future visitors, saying, “Mam, I would ask @Disney if my family gets hurt or has an allergy to your dole whip for example during our upcoming Disney trip, Does that mean we are going to have financial issues cause we watch @DisneyPlus? Financial ruin, thats the power of Disney Magic! 🤷‍♂️🙂”

https://twitter.com/Big_rich1987/status/1823462163048227073

@manformindy put it perhaps most simply: “Shame on you.”

https://twitter.com/manformindy/status/1823469729694277802

“There Is Not a Single Authority…That Would Support Such an Inane Argument”

However, it is not just social media backlash that Disney World has to worry about. Jeffrey Piccolo’s lawyers have filed a rebuttal to Disney’s demand that the wrongful death lawsuit be dropped from court, calling its argument “fatally flawed” and mercilessly breaking it down over a whopping 123 pages of response.

The response states that Disney’s “argument is fatally flawed for numerous independent reasons…and the Court should deny the Motion in its entirety.” It sums up the motion, saying:

“It argues that the Estate of Ms. Tangsuan must arbitrate its claims because: 1) Mr. Piccolo, in his individual capacity back in 2019, allegedly agreed to arbitrate any dispute against WDPR by signing up for a Disney+ account on his PlayStation, and 2) Mr. Piccolo, in his individual capacity prior to his wife’s passing, used the WDPR website to purchase tickets to Epcot (which were never used).”

Key to the response is the assertion that Disney is attempting to claim that Jeffrey Piccolo waived his rights to a trial jury, but it is not Piccolo that has brought the lawsuit. Instead, it makes the legal distinction between the widower as an individual and his role as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Kanokporn Tangsuan, stating that his decision to sign up for a “Disney account” has no bearing on a lawsuit brought by the estate. Related: Disney CEO Bob Iger’s Toy Venture Faces Lawsuit, Forced to Pay Multi-Million-Dollar Settlement Per the filing:

“In its Motion, [Disney] nonetheless improperly attempts to negate this distinction by making the preposterous argument that when Jeffrey Piccolo, individually, allegedly signed himself up for a free trial of Disney+ back in 2019 or bought Epcot tickets in 2023, he somehow bound the non-existent Estate of Kanokporn Tangsuan (his wife, who was alive at both times) to an arbitration agreement buried within certain terms and conditions. [Disney] does not explain how it is possible for Mr. Piccolo individually to bind an Estate that did not exist, which is not surprising as there is not a single authority in Florida that would support such an inane argument.“

Piccolo’s lawyers go into further detail, calling Disney’s argument “surreal” and claiming that the arbitration clause is “unenforceable because Mr. Piccolo would have had no actual or inquiry notice of the Disney Terms of Use” and that the Disney+ “Terms of Use is not valid or enforceable because it conflicts with the My Disney Experience Terms and Conditions.” The Orange County Ninth Judicial Circuit Court has not yet ruled on either Disney World’s motion or Piccolo’s response to it, but, in a way, it is now a moot point. Disney World wanted to get this wrongful death lawsuit out of the public eye and move on from it, but instead, its ham-fisted attempt to enforce vague “Terms and Conditions” has turned it viral. Whether or not the case goes to arbitration, Disney has made it wider public knowledge than it ever was before. The entirety of the estate’s response can be read here: Do you think Disney World is acting in good faith in this case?