(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 ( DIS ) 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 ( DIS ) 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 ( DIS ) 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 ( DIS ) 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 ( DIS )."

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 ( DIS ) 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 ( DIS )

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 ( DIS ) 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 ( DIS ) "surreal" argument in

court papers earlier this month in a filing that's attracted

widespread media coverage.

If Disney's ( DIS ) 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 ( DIS ) 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 ( DIS ) 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 ( DIS ) 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 ( DIS ) 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 ( DIS ) does not have a 'slam dunk,' sure-win case," he added.