SOUTHERNMOST AFFILIATES, D/B/A THE REACH HOTEL, APPELLANT,
v.
DR. JAMES ALONZO AND DONNA CLIFFORD, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A hotel appeals a negligence judgment for damages from a guest burglary, arguing the hotel's liability is limited to $500 per claim under Florida Statutes Section 509.111(2). The court reverses, holding that the hotel did not affirmatively mislead guests and therefore may rely on the statutory liability cap.
The hotel may rely on the $500 statutory liability limitation. Although guests alleged the hotel misled them into believing the room was safe, the hotel's conduct—sending a repairman to the wrong room—constitutes merely negligent error, not affirmative misrepresentation, and therefore does not estop the hotel from asserting the statutory cap.
[1] A hotel operator's liability for guest losses is limited by statute to $500 per claim when the guest fails to file an inventory and does not give property to the hotel fo…
[2] A hotel may be estopped from relying on statutory liability limitations if it affirmatively misleads guests into believing their property is safe.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a negligent hotel operator is limited to $500 in liability for losses to guests, where the guest did not file an inventory and did not give the property to the hotel for safekeeping”
Establishes the statutory liability cap that applies to this case under Section 509.111(2)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGuests at the Reach Hotel reported a broken lock on their balcony door. The hotel attempted repairs but the repairman went to the wrong room. The gues…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Waiver cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Southernmost Affiliates, d/b/a the Reach Hotel, appeals an adverse judgment in a negligence action brought by hotel guests, the appellees. We reverse because the hotel’s liability was limited under Section 509.111(2), Florida Statutes (1993), to a maximum of $500 per claim.
Pursuant to Section 509.111(2), a negligent hotel operator is limited to $500 in liability for losses to guests, where the guest did not file an inventory and did not give the propei’ty to the hotel for safekeeping. Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Coppedge, 405 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), review denied, 415 So. 2d 1359 (Fla.1982).
Here, although the hotel posted the required notice to guests under Section 509.101, Florida Statutes (1993), the appellees argue that the hotel is estopped from relying upon the statutory limitation, contending that the hotel misled them into believing the room was safe, and therefore waived its right to rely upon Section 509.111(2).
See Fennema v. Howard Johnson Co., 559 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Florida Sonesta Corp. v. Aniballi, 463 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 476 So. 2d 672 (Fla.1985), and review denied, 476 So. 2d 673 (Fla.1985).
We disagree.
Appellees complained to the desk clerk that the lock on their balcony door was broken. Although the hotel attempted to fix the lock, the repairman went to the wrong room. Appellees did not check to see if the lock had been fixed, and were burglarized two or three nights later.
The facts of this case do not rise to the level of affirmative misleading present in the Aniballi and Fennema cases. Here, there is no evidence that the hotel assured the appel-lees that their possessions would be safe, or affirmatively misled the appellees in any way. At most, the hotel’s conduct in sending a repairman to the wrong room reflects a negligent mistake, not an affirmative action to mislead.
Accordingly, in the absence of any other evidence that the hotel failed to strictly comply with the requirements of the statute, we reverse that part of the amended final judgment awarding appellee Alonzo $2,481.70, and awarding appellee Clifford $3,240.95.
The trial court is directed to limit recovery to each appellee to a maximum of $500.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Leonard v. Sann Leonard, 405 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Fennema v. The Howard Johnson Co., 559 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Fla. Sonesta Corp. v. Aniballi, 463 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)