Wrongful Handling

Despite being repeatedly assured her food contained no peanuts, an NYU doctor died at a Disney resort — and now, her widower's wrongful death lawsuit is being challenged on a seemingly bogus technicality.

As Law & Crime reports, the wrongful death suit filed earlier this year by widower Jeffrey Piccolo in the wake of his late wife Kanokporn "Amy" Tangsuan's death at a Disney resort last October has been the subject of a tense back-and-forth between the grieving plaintiff and the defendant.

In its most recent forte, Disney claimed that Piccolo forfeited his right to sue the entertainment conglomerate when signing up for a free Disney+ subscription trial in 2019 and when using the company's app at its theme park a month prior to his wife's death.

In other words, the media giant is arguing that because he didn't read the fine print on his free Disney+ trial, Piccolo and his late wife's estate forfeited the right to sue.

Taking Offense

As the widower's attorneys suggested in their suit filed in a Florida circuit court, that assertion is pretty darn offensive.

Instead of letting a jury decide whether or not Tangsuan's allergic reaction death should net Piccolo damages, Disney said that the widower is beholden, per the Disney+ trial contract, to solve the issue in arbitration.

Otherwise known as "forced arbitration," this type of clause has been the subject of multiple congressional outlawing efforts of varying levels of success. Companies prefer to compel customers into arbitration because it's cheaper for them and allows them to choose the person making the ultimate calls.

It's arguably a sick way to handle such an emotionally charged case, and Piccolo's lawyers are fighting back.

Alarming Assertion

In this latest counter-filing, Piccolo and his attorneys are calling BS on the entire premise of Disney's argument.

"There is simply no reading of the Disney+ Subscriber Agreement, the only Agreement Mr. Piccolo allegedly assented to in creating his Disney+ account, which would support the notion that he was agreeing on behalf of his wife or her estate, to arbitrate injuries sustained by his wife," the suit posits. "Frankly, any such suggestion borders on the absurd."

It's worth noting that in its bid to get the suit thrown out, Disney's lawyers have contested the facts of the widower's lawsuit that was, as the New York Post notes, only seeking $50,000 in damages for his late wife's death.

That's a paltry sum to a megalith like Disney — but when it comes to controlling the narrative and arena, it seems like even this small fight is worth sending in its battleships.

More on curious lawsuits: Elon Musk's X Fighting Not to Give Up Information in Epstein Victim Case

The post Disney Says Wrongful Death Suit Should Be Dropped Because Plaintiff Was a Disney+ Subscriber appeared first on Futurism.

Go here to see the original:
Disney Says Wrongful Death Suit Should Be Dropped Because Plaintiff Was a Disney+ Subscriber