Viewpoint: Allergen awareness vital

When was the last time you downloaded an app and actually read the terms and conditions? A couple’s visit to Disney World last year and a widower’s subsequent food-allergy wrongful death lawsuit filed against the entertainment giant highlights the reputational risks that need to be considered when a corporation decides to stick to the fine print and tries to avoid its day in court.

This case hit home for me. As a mom to one child with multiple life-threatening food allergies and another with a severe dietary restriction, eating out is always a risky endeavor. We typically never leave the house without our epi-pen but also rely on food establishments — and their employees — to provide accurate information on food allergens and ingredients.

In this case, after eating dinner at a restaurant at Disney World, a woman allegedly died after suffering a severe allergic reaction. The restaurant in question had been chosen in part because of its promise to accommodate patrons with food allergies, and the family had informed the restaurant and their waiter of the woman’s severe allergy to dairy and nuts, according to the lawsuit.

In response, Disney initially denied any wrongdoing and filed a motion asking a Florida circuit court to order the plaintiff to arbitration rather than hear the case publicly in court. Disney maintained that the plaintiff had waived his right to sue when he signed up for a Disney+ streaming account in 2019 and again when he purchased park tickets on the company’s website last year.

Fast-forward to late August, and readers may not be surprised to learn that Disney has since reversed course and decided not to push for arbitration. “With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss,” the company said in a statement reported by major news organizations.

There are so many takeaways from this tragic sequence of events that it’s hard to know where to begin.

Data on food allergies is hard to come by because it’s almost entirely self-reported, but about 32 million people in the U.S. are estimated to have at least one food allergy. Nearly 6% of U.S. adults and children have a food allergy, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics. Despite the prevalence, understanding of food allergies and the associated severe consequences remains wildly inconsistent. It’s time that this changed. If a restaurant advertises its commitment to accommodate diners with food allergies, safety practices and procedures had better be in place to minimize the risks of anaphylaxis. That goes to employee training, food safety in the kitchen, and food labeling — undeclared allergens remain a leading cause of food recalls, according to the Food and Drug Administration.

Despite the perception that certain restaurants or brands may be more allergen-aware, obviously, there are no guarantees. The trend of outsized jury verdicts and associated claims costs is a growing concern for insurers, and many companies are struggling to manage this complex risk. There are no quick fixes, but in cases such as this, it seems clear that corporations should come clean and settle if they value their reputation. Otherwise, in their attempt to find a more cost-efficient way of resolving disputes, they’ll lose much more.