California Woman Claims ‘Tainted’ Airline Food Caused Life-Threatening Allergic Reaction Mid-Flight: Complaint

A California woman has filed a lawsuit against Singapore Airlines, alleging that she suffered a life-threatening allergic reaction due to improperly prepared food served during an in-flight meal. Tinyan Lawrence and her husband, Alexander, initiated the civil complaint on February 17, outlining events that transpired on August 2, 2025, as they returned home from Bali, Indonesia, with their infant son.

According to the lawsuit, the family was on a multi-legged flight from Bali to California, with a layover at Singapore’s Changi Airport. During their time in the premium economy cabin, the cabin crew offered meal choices that included tom yum soup with prawns or chicken and pasta. Tinyan Lawrence, who has a severe shellfish allergy, claims she explicitly communicated her dietary restrictions to the flight attendants prior to meal service.

When the meal trays were served, the complaint alleges that the crew recognised Tinyan’s allergy once more but still provided her with the chicken and pasta dish. Following a few bites, Tinyan became alarmed as symptoms of an allergic reaction began to manifest. Reports indicate that she experienced difficulty breathing, swelling of her face and eyes, dizziness, stomach pain, hives, and flushed skin.

In a panic, Alexander Lawrence retrieved an EpiPen from their luggage and administered a dose of epinephrine to his wife in an attempt to counteract the escalating symptoms. Despite a brief improvement, Tinyan’s condition reportedly worsened as the family prepared to disembark the aircraft. The couple asserts that Singapore Airlines staff failed to assist or provide medical attention during this crisis.

As they exited the plane, the couple reportedly sought guidance from Singapore Airlines employees on the location of medical facilities within the airport, but claim they were directed in the wrong direction. During their search for urgent medical care, Tinyan’s symptoms intensified, prompting Alexander to administer a second dose from another EpiPen.

The couple was subsequently informed that Tinyan was unfit to travel for the next leg of their trip and were forced to spend the night in Singapore before being able to return home the following day. In their complaint, they highlight Singapore Airlines’ liability under Article 17 of the Montreal Convention, which covers the responsibility of air carriers for bodily injury on international flights.

They have requested a jury trial and seek both general and special damages, alongside court costs and attorney fees, with the final amount to be determined during the proceedings. Tinyan’s attorney, Susie Injijian, expressed that her clients had relied on the airline to uphold safe practices regarding allergens in its in-flight meals.

Injijian emphasised the serious nature of anaphylactic reactions, especially in the context of air travel, where rapid deterioration can occur. She voiced hope that the incident would serve as a learning opportunity for Singapore Airlines to enhance their procedures concerning food allergies.

At the time of writing, Singapore Airlines has been approached for comments regarding the lawsuit but had yet to respond.