Woman Sues Singapore Airlines After She Was Served ‘Tainted’ Inflight Meal That Resulted in Full Blown Allergic Reaction

A Northern California woman is suing world-renowned Singapore Airlines after she claimed she was served a ‘tainted’ in-flight meal that led to her suffering a full-blown anaphylactic shock that could have been deadly if it wasn’t for her husband’s instinct to quickly administer a life-saving EpiPen shot.

Tinyan Lawrence has filed her lawsuit against the official five-star rated airline in a California district court under Article 17 of the Montreal Convention, which makes airlines responsible for injuries suffered by passengers during the course of an international flight.

Tinyan, her husband, and their infant son were traveling home to San Francisco in August 2025 after a vacation in Bali, and were flying with Singapore Airlines, first from Bali to Singapore and then onwards to San Francisco.

It was, however, the first flight from Bali to Singapore and would leave Tinyan gravely sick, according to the legal complaint.

During the short two-hour flight, the cabin crew carried out a full meal service in the Premium Economy cabin where the Lawrences were sitting. On the menu were two entree options: Tom yum soup or chicken and pasta.

As Tinyan is severely allergic to shellfish, she couldn’t eat the tom yum soup. She notified the cabin crew of her allergy and checked whether the chicken and pasta dish was free of shellfish.

The flight attendant reassured Tinyan that the chicken and pasta dish didn’t have shellfish and served the meal. After taking a few bites, however, Tinyan quickly realized she was starting to feel the symptoms of a “full-blown allergic reaction.”

“Specifically, she experienced rapid onset and advancement of symptoms of anaphylaxis, including, most dangerously, difficulty breathing as her throat swelled and her airway constricted,” the complaint explains.

“Her face and eyes became swollen to the point that her vision was obstructed. She became dizzy, lightheaded, and suffered stomach pain and cramps, hives, flushed skin, and other physical manifestations.”

Tinyan says she was terrified and felt helpless until her husband rushed to get an EpiPen from her carry-on bag and delivered a life-saving shot of Epinephrine which can, at least temporarily, reverse the effects of a severe anaphylactic reaction.

The lawsuit claims the flight attendants never offered Tinyan any help, and as she was deplaning the aircraft, the symptoms of a severe anaphylactic shock started to come back.

After being pointed in the wrong direction to a medical center by airport staff, Tinyan had to administer a second EpiPen before they found medical staff and received professional care.

Tinyan was declared unfit to fly, and the family was forced to spend the night in Singapore before being cleared the following day to San Francisco.

A general claim under Article 17 of the Montreal Convention is limited to 151,880 Special Drawing Rights – representing a basket of currencies. At today’s rate, 216,470 SDR is equivalent to around $216,470.

However, if a passenger’s injury or death is due to the negligence or wrongful act of the airline, then this cap doesn’t apply.

Last year, Singapore Airlines was sued by another American passenger after she was allegedly accidentally served a meal containing shellfish during a flight from Frankfurt to New York JFK.

Doreen Benary says she told flight attendants as soon as she boarded the plane that she was allergic to shellfish, but that warning went seemingly unheeded by the crew member.

Benary was given a meal with shellfish as an ingredient in the sauce, meaning that she wasn’t aware of the risk until she started eating the meal. Benary’s allergic reaction was so bad that the plane made an emergency medical diversion to Paris, where she was rushed to the hospital.

Singapore Airlines said it was unable to comment on the latest lawsuit due to the fact that the legal process is ongoing.