CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...any inquiries concerning value. Notices containing a paraphrase of F.S.
509.111, F.S.A., supplied by the Florida Hotel and Restaurant Commission were posted in various locations in the hotel, in substantial compliance with the notice provisions of F.S.
509.101, F.S.A....
...Harbor Island Spa, Inc., 5 Cir.1970,
420 F.2d 1100, which had not been handed down at the time the trial judge rendered his decision in the case at bar. [3] The only factual distinction between the two cases is the fact that in Fuchs the hotel failed to post notices as required by F.S.
509.101, F.S.A., while in the case sub judice there was substantial compliance with this statutory requirement....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...The first circuit court ruling granted the motion of Florida Sonesta Corporation, d/b/a Sonesta Beach Hotel (Sonesta/the Hotel) for summary judgment, determining that no material issues of fact existed regarding the Hotel's compliance with sections
509.101 and
509.111, Florida Statutes (1979)....
...This procedure took place on three separate occasions during the Aniballis' stay at the Sonesta. On the fourth occasion, the safe deposit box was empty. As required by the Florida statutes, the Hotel had posted a "Notice to Guest" sign which set forth verbatim sections
509.101(1) and
509.111(1), Florida Statutes *1206 (1979)....
...[2] , [3] This sign was posted only on the interior door of the bathroom in each of the guest rooms. The Aniballis' amended complaint sought damages based on the above facts and additionally alleged that the Sonesta had failed to comply strictly with the requirements of section
509.101(1), Florida Statutes (1979), and, as a consequence, waived the $1,000 limitation of liability established under section
509.111, Florida Statutes (1979)....
...11, Florida Statutes (1979); and that the hotel employee acted outside the scope of his employment. Following discovery, the Aniballis moved for partial summary judgment on the issues of the Hotel's failure to comply with the posting requirements of section
509.101 and the receipt requirements of section
509.111....
...hat its employee's criminal act could not be imputed to the Hotel; that no evidence existed to find the Hotel negligent; and no basis existed upon which to award punitive damages. The circuit court ruled that the "Notice to Guest" sign complied with section
509.101, Florida Statutes (1979), and that the "Safe Deposit Box Statement of Value" card constituted compliance by the Hotel with the requirements of section
509.111, Florida Statutes (1979), and therefore, ruled that the Hotel's liability was limited to $1,000 in compensatory damages....
...ppellate Division, afforded procedural due process and applied the correct law. City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant,
419 So.2d 624, 626 (Fla. 1982). The court based its affirmance on the record evidence supporting the Sonesta Hotel's compliance with section
509.101(1), Florida Statutes (1979)....
...The basis for this ruling was that the posting of the "Notice to Guest" sign on the interior door of the bathroom in each guest room was done "in a conspicuous place." We disagree, however, with this determination. This unambiguous statute states that any regulation established pursuant to section
509.101(1), shall be printed in English and "posted, together with a copy of ss.
509.111, ... in the office, hall, or lobby or another prominent place of such public lodging establishment." (e.s.). §
509.101(1), Fla. Stat. (1979). There was no record evidence to indicate that the posting of section
509.111 was done in any of the places set forth and required by the statute. Furthermore, this provision of section
509.101 must be read as a part of the exculpatory provisions contained in section
509.111, Fuchs v....
...Accordingly, the petitions for writ of certiorari are granted, the order of the Circuit Court, Appellate Division, is quashed, and the matter is remanded with directions. NOTES [1] The front side of the card, as filled out by Mr. Aniballi, read as follows: [2] 509.101....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1990 WL 37430
...The defendants moved for a summary judgment which the trial court granted on the basis of the statute. Specifically, the trial court ruled that the defendants had posted Section
509.111, Florida Statutes (1985) in a "prominent place," [as required by Section
509.101, Florida Statutes (1985)] namely, the inside of an open closet in the plaintiffs' motel room and, consequently, were absolved of all liability for the theft loss sued upon when the plaintiffs failed to comply with the provisions of Section
509.111....
...With respect to any damage to or loss of a guest's property, however, an innkeeper's negligence liability is specifically limited by Section
509.111, Florida Statutes (1985) provided a copy of that statute is posted "in the office, hall, or lobby or another prominent place of such public lodging ... establishment." §
509.101, Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 5625, 1995 WL 316555
...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)....
