By Daniel Wiessner
(Reuters) -Walt Disney Co on Monday agreed to have a court decide a wrongful death lawsuit brought by a widower in Florida, after earlier arguing the case belonged in arbitration because the man signed up for a trial of streaming service Disney+ in 2019.
The lawsuit was filed 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 in Orlando.
"We believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss," Josh D'Amaro, chairman, Disney Experiences told Reuters in an emailed statement.
"As such, we've decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court," D'Amaro added.
The case began when Jeffrey Piccolo, his wife Kanokporn Tangsuan 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 and died of anaphylaxis from elevated levels of nut and dairy in her system, the complaint in Orange County court said.
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 another 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 park tickets.
The decision to not seek arbitration is unusual and suggests that Disney's lawyers believed the Disney+ agreement would not apply to the case, said Joseph Sellers, a plaintiffs' lawyer who routinely brings large-scale class actions in court and arbitration.
Consumers must be put on notice that they are agreeing to arbitrate specific types of claims in order for an agreement to be enforceable, so it is unlikely that a streaming service agreement would apply to a restaurant meal, according to Sellers, who is not involved in Piccolo's case.
"It would be more embarrassing for the company to litigate that issue and then lose as opposed to just walking away from the arbitration agreement," he said.