Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...claims regarding such property. The search had no relation to the crime for which defendant was arrested. The innkeeper was adequately protected by statutory provisions limiting the liability of an innkeeper for loss of guests' property. Fla. Stat. § 509.111, F.S.A....

...Harold L. Ward, of Fowler, White, Collins, Gillen, Humkey & Trenam, and Smathers & Thompson, Miami, for amicus curiae. McCAIN, Judge. In these consolidated cases plaintiffs appeal from a final summary judgment *777 limiting defendant's liability under F.S. 509.111(1) [1] , F.S.A....

...ing blanks for signatures and other vital information. No space was provided on the card for an estimate of the value of the property entrusted to the hotel, nor did the hotel make 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. Defendant hotel, relying on plaintiffs' failure to tender an estimate of value as required by F.S. 509.111, F.S.A., denied liability for the loss in excess of $1,000.00 and moved for summary judgment....

...mary judgment in favor of the hotel, stating, among other things: "* * * The Court does not interpret the language on the registration card to constitute the hotel an insurer of the property, nor a waiver of the benefits intended by Florida Statutes 509.111, F.S.A....

...ts rights under the Florida statute. The opinion, however, is unclear as to exactly what conduct by the hotel operated to waive its rights, but it approves and quotes the trial court's opinion as follows: "`2. Defendant may not avoid liability under Section 509.111, Florida Statutes, since it instituted a procedure for depositing valuables which did not require strict compliance with the statute....

...safe deposit [300] box, and are never given actual notice that the hotel does not intend to insure safekeeping. A guest making a deposit might reasonably conclude that the hotel had assumed responsibility for safekeeping for property notwithstanding § 509.111. When both hotel and guest are charged with knowledge of the statute, the Court will not speculate whether the hotel purposely circumvented compliance with § 509.111, or the guest knowingly forewent the protection that accompanies compliance. Here, as in Safety Harbor Spa, the hotel instituted a deposit procedure which, when followed failed to produce a § 509.111 deposit....

...aluables. Therefore, it is clear that the hotel in the case at bar induced plaintiffs to change their position injuriously by its conduct. This constitutes an estoppel under the Coogler rule. Whether the guests had or did not have actual notice of F.S. 509.111, F.S.A., is immaterial to either an estoppel or a waiver since they may reasonably have assumed, as the Fuchs case concludes, based on the management's representations of responsibility, that the hotel intended to waive the benefits of the statute in order to provide better service to its guests....

...instructions to enter summary judgment for plaintiffs in keeping with the views expressed herein, with trial to be held on the issue of damages alone. Reversed and remanded. OWEN, J., and STEWART, JAMES R., JR., Associate Judge, concur. NOTES [1] F.S. 509.111, F.S.A., Liability for property of guests and tenants....

...These are appeals by an innkeeper (Appeal #80-1544) and its insurer (Appeal #80-1487) from determinations in the trial court that the innkeeper is liable to its guest for loss of certain items of jewelry and that the loss is covered by insurance. The applicability of the Florida Innkeeper's Statute, Section 509.111, Florida Statutes (1979), is called into question....

...The jury further found in favor of the hotel against its insurer. The first issue presented for our determination is whether or not the trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict to the effect that liability was limited by the Florida Innkeeper's Statute. That statute, Section 509.111 Florida Statutes (1979), provides: (1) The operator of a public lodging establishment is under no obligation to accept for safekeeping any moneys, securities, jewelry, or precious stones of any kind belonging to any guest, and, if suc...

...uest before there can be an acceptance by the hotel. Here there was no such tender by Mrs. Coppedge. In fact she made an informed and specific decision to forego the use of the hotel's safety deposit boxes (safekeeping facilities). Subsection (2) of 509.111 places the burden of complying with enumerated procedures on the guest in order to avoid a strict limitation of liability for the loss of items which have not been accepted by a hotel for safekeeping....

...However, the statute clearly sanctions such an eventuality by providing that a hotel is under no obligation to accept the specified items for safekeeping. Our conclusion is that if the hotel is liable for the loss its liability is limited by subsection (2) of Section 509.111, Florida Statutes (1979). A hotel is liable for loss of a guest's property only when the loss is a proximate result of fault or negligence of the hotel. § 509.111, Fla....

...ility. If the loss is not the proximate result of the hotel's fault or negligence, then there is no liability and obviously a limitation of liability is inapplicable. Only if the hotel's fault or negligence is the proximate cause of the loss, do the Section 509.111 limitations on liability become operative. There were no issues of fact as to the applicability of Section 509.111 in the instant case....

...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)....

...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)....

...ty. The Hotel's answer denied the allegations of breach of contract and negligence. Its affirmative defenses alleged that the Aniballis were comparatively negligent in depositing valuables over the $1,000 amount; that the damage claim was limited by section 509.111, 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....

...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....

...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. Harbor Island Spa, Inc., 420 F.2d 1100, 1102 (5th Cir.1970), and section 509.111, enacted in derogation of the common law, must be strictly construed....

...ring the burden of strict compliance therewith. Zacharia v. Harbor Island Spa, Inc., 684 F.2d 199, 203 (2d Cir.1982); Garner v. Margery Lane, Inc., 242 So.2d 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); Safety Harbor Spa, Inc. v. High, 137 So.2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). Section 509.111(1), Florida Statutes (1979), requires that a hotel follow certain procedures in order to limit its liability for losses of property which it accepts for safekeeping....

...d to exercise this right. Additionally, the hotel's liability may be limited only if the hotel gave a receipt for the property (stating the value). Zacharia v. Harbor Island Spa, Inc., 684 F.2d at 203; Garner v. Margery Lane, Inc., 242 So.2d at 779; § 509.111(1), Fla....

...All of the documentation was retained by the Hotel in accordance with its established practices. Thus, the Hotel's non-compliance with the plain language of the statute, requiring that a receipt be given to the guest depositing valuables, deprived it of the benefit of the limitation of liability under section 509.111(1)....

...Upon remand, the parties will, in all likelihood, pursue their respective claims. The Aniballis' amended complaint sought both compensatory and punitive damages, which were subsequently ordered limited to $1,000 because of the determination of the *1208 applicability of section 509.111(1)....

...Such rules and regulations shall control the liabilities, responsibilities, and obligations of all parties. Any rules or regulations established pursuant to this section shall be printed in the English language 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... . [3] 509.111....

...e therefrom insofar as its own protection was concerned. We have read the complete record of the testimony adduced below and find no error in the figures set out in the verdict rendered by the trial judge. The appellant argues that Florida Statutes, § 509.111, F.S.A., which deals with the liability of innkeepers for property of their guests, requires a special deposit with the defendant; a receipt in writing to the plaintiff in exchange therefor; and a statement of the value of the deposit on t...

...HUBBART, Judge. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs Robert and Kimberly Fennema from an adverse final summary judgment entered below in an innkeeper's negligence action. The central question presented for review is whether an innkeeper may rely on Section 509.111, Florida Statutes (1985), which limits an innkeeper's liability for loss of a guest's personal property, when, as here, (a) the innkeeper affirmatively advises his guest to park the guest's motor vehicle in a particular location in th...

...tors of the motel, they had an obligation, at a minimum, to warn their guests. The defendant filed an answer denying any liability for the theft loss and setting up various affirmative defenses, including that the plaintiffs' recovery was limited by Section 509.111, Florida Statutes (1985). 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....

...sts and their property. Orlando Executive Park, Inc. v. Robbins, 433 So.2d 491, 493 (Fla. 1983) (citations omitted). 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. Stat. (1985); Florida Sonesta Corp. v. Aniballi, 463 So.2d 1203, 1207 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 476 So.2d 672, 673 (Fla. 1985). Section 509.111, Florida Statutes (1985), the innkeeper's limitation of liability statute, provides: "(1) The operator of a public lodging establishment is under no obligation to accept *1234 for safekeeping any moneys, securities, jewelry, or precio...

...unity to inspect such effects and check them against such inventory. The operator of a public lodging establishment shall not be liable or responsible to any guest for the loss of effects listed in such inventory in a total amount exceeding $1,000." § 509.111, Fla....

...as it merely limits such liability to $500 if statutory procedures are not followed. It is not necessary, however, to resolve any of the above questions because, in our view, the defendant innkeepers are *1235 estopped to invoke whatever protection Section 509.111, Florida Statutes (1985), may afford....

...spot. Having affirmatively misled the plaintiffs that it was, in effect, safe to leave their vehicle and its contents at this location in the motel parking lot, the defendant innkeepers are in no position to claim the limited liability protection of Section 509.111, Florida Statutes (1985)....

...the past criminal activity and car thefts on and about the defendant's parking lot. Orlando Executive Park, Inc. v. Robbins . III For the above-stated reasons, the trial court erroneously entered a summary judgment for the defendants on the basis of Section 509.111, Florida Statutes (1985)....

...a guest at the hotel, from an armed robber who broke into his locked room, held him up at gun point, bound and gagged him, and then escaped with all his property. After the trial, the lower court reduced the verdict and judgment to $500 pursuant to section 509.111(1), Florida Statutes (1983), 2 on the ground that the statutory prerequisites for the recovery of more than $1,000 (less $500 representing fifty per cent comparative negligence 3 ) had not been satisfied. This ruling was erroneous. Even to the extent that it applies, section 509.111(1) limits an innkeeper’s liability only as to the value of personal property which is stolen from or lost by a hotel guest....

...reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter a judgment in Millman’s favor for $25,000 in accordance with the jury verdict. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART. . Howard Johnson’s does not challenge the jury finding to this effect. . 509.111 Liability for property of guests.— (1) The operator of a public lodging establishment is under no obligation to accept for safekeeping any moneys, securities, jewelry, or precious stones of any kind belonging to any guest, and, if such are...

...on costs occasioned by Olsen’s negligently releasing the trailer to the thief. Upon a jury trial, the court refused to instruct the jury, at the request of the appellant, to the effect that damages, if found, should be limited to $100, pursuant to § 509.111(2), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. 1 Subsequently, the jury returned a verdict for the appellee in the amount of $700. Judgment was entered on the verdict and the defendants appealed. The sole issue presented is the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury pursuant to § 509.111(2) supra....

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....

...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)....

...el operated by defendant and stolen therefrom by unknown persons. The three counts are based on (1) common-law bailment, (2) negligence, and (3) allegation of a waiver by the hotel company of the protection provided it by the Florida Statute (F.S.A. § 509.111) and thus rendering itself liable under the common-law bailment and negligence theories....

...n deposited with the hotel for safekeeping rests no longer in Florida simply upon common-law principles. It is now regulated by statutes of the State of Florida. The decision here must turn upon the construction of the following Florida Statutes: “509.111 Liability for property of guests and tenants “(1) The proprietor or manager of a hotel, apartment house, rooming house, motor court, trailer court or boarding house in this state shall, in no event, be liable or responsible for any loss of...

...Assuming these allegations to be true, this failure on the part of the hotel does not render it liable to the guests where the complaints show, as they do here, that there was a complete failure on the part of the guests to comply with the requirements of Section 509.111 of the statutes with reference to making a declaration of the value of the property left with the hotel at the time it was deposited for safekeeping by the guests....

...Petitioner sued the respondent in negligence for inadequate security to recover for the loss of his belongings, allegedly totalling in excess of $50,000. Respondent moved for, and the lower court entered, summary judgment limiting respondent's liability in accord with section 509.111, Florida Statutes *1050 (1993)....

...Accordingly, we vacate the previously entered stay of appellate proceedings, grant certiorari and quash the order transferring the cause to county court based on the "improvidently granted" summary judgment in the respondent's favor. See Johnson, 592 So.2d at 1226. Certiorari granted. NOTES [1] Section 509.111, Florida Statutes (1993), provides: (1) The operator of a public lodging establishment is not under any obligation to accept for safekeeping any moneys, securities, jewelry, or precious stones of any kind belonging to any guest, and,...

...s parking lot. We affirm the trial court’s conclusion that the motel clerk’s negligent misrepresentation regarding security in the parking lot was the proximate cause of Fair’s loss, and write only to address Howard Johnson’s contention that section 509.111(2), Florida Statutes (1985), 1 limited its liability for the loss of Fair’s property to $500.00. At common law, the innkeeper was practically an insurer of property brought *724 by a guest to his inn. 40 Am.Jur.2d, Hotels, Motels and Restaurants, § 127 (1968). Thus, it is generally held that statutes, such as section 509.111, defining the limits of an innkeeper’s liability for loss of or injury to his guest’s property, should be strictly construed....

...Annot., Statutory Limitations Upon Innkeeper’s Liability As Applicable Where Guest’s Property Is Lost or Damaged Through Innkeeper’s Negligence, 37 A.L.R.3d 1276 (1971). In Cole v. Carmell, 112 So.2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959), the court had occasion to construe a predecessor to the present section 509.111, which included trailer courts within its parameters, and to decide whether the statute applied to the theft of a house trailer from a trailer park. The trial court refused to instruct the jury to the effect that damages, if found, should be limited to $100.00 (now $500.00) pursuant to section 509.111(2)....

...The facts presented we conclude rendered inapplicable the limited liability provisions of the statute. We think the trial judge in this case, following the same reasoning as the court in Cole , was eminently correct when he refused to limit the judgment in this case to $500.00, reasoning: That section 509.111(2), Florida Statutes (1985), only applies to property belonging to a guest of a motel, if said property is either specifically listed in said statute, or if said property is of a nature and type that can be carried into the guest’s...

...The term “other property” in said statute does not contemplate automobiles or trailers. See also, Plant v. Howard Johnson’s Motel Lodge, 500 N.E.2d 1271 (Ind.App. 3d Dist.1986); and Vilella v. Sabine, Inc., 652 P.2d 759 (Okla.1982). AFFIRMED. NIMMONS and ALLEN, JJ., concur. . Section 509.111(2) provides: (1) The operator of a public lodging establishment is under no obligation to accept for safekeeping any moneys, securities, jewelry, or precious stones of any kind belonging to any guest, and, if such are accepted for saf...