Background
Two hotel guests, Ryan Fortune and Rawle Fortune, drowned in the ocean fronting the Courtyard Marriott Isla Verde Beach Resort in Puerto Rico in November 2021. The National Weather Service had issued rip current warnings for the area on the day of the incident, but the hotel did not communicate these warnings to guests or post warning signs at the beach entrance. The families of the deceased sued Marriott and Iguana Sport Services, Corp., a contractor that provided beach and towel attendants under a management agreement with the hotel.
Iguana argued it had no duty to protect guests because its contractual obligations were limited to providing attendant services—not security, lifeguards, or safety equipment. The district court granted summary judgment for Iguana on all grounds. The appellants challenged this decision, arguing that Iguana owed a heightened duty of care either as an “innkeeper” under Puerto Rico law, through its permit to operate in the maritime-terrestrial zone, or through its contractual relationship with Marriott.
The Court’s Holding
The First Circuit held that Iguana had no duty to protect guests under its contract with Marriott or its permit. The written agreement limited Iguana’s responsibilities to providing beach attendants and towels, with no provision for security, lifeguards, or safety measures. The court rejected the argument that Iguana’s course of dealing with Marriott created an implied obligation to provide guest safety, finding no factual basis for such an implied agreement.
Regarding the permit, the court found that Iguana’s authorization to operate was limited to a specific 250-square-foot area of beach. The permit conditions requiring responsibility for “cleanliness, maintenance, and safety of the area” and “prudence in adverse climatic conditions” applied only to that designated space and did not extend to the ocean itself. The court thus held the permit imposed no duty to warn guests or provide emergency assistance for ocean hazards.
However, the court identified two unresolved questions of Puerto Rico law that were outcome-determinative and certified them to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court: (1) whether an entity providing services in a limited hotel area can assume the legal status and heightened duties of an “innkeeper,” and (2) whether a contractor operating a hotel’s beach area owes a heightened duty of care based on the nature of its services. The court retained jurisdiction pending the Puerto Rico Supreme Court’s response.
Key Takeaways
- A contractor’s duties are limited to those expressly or clearly impliedly agreed upon; general involvement in hotel operations does not automatically create additional safety obligations.
- Regulatory permits are interpreted according to their plain language and express scope limitations; responsibilities apply only to the area explicitly authorized for operation.
- Federal courts will certify novel questions of state law to state supreme courts when the questions are outcome-determinative and lack clear precedent, respecting state judicial authority.
- The heightened duty of care imposed on hotels and innkeepers under Puerto Rico law remains undefined as to third-party contractors operating limited areas of a hotel property.
Why It Matters
This decision leaves unresolved a critical question about hotel contractor liability under Puerto Rico law. Hotels routinely outsource specific operations—beach services, concierge, restaurant management—to third-party contractors. The certification clarifies that federal courts will not impose an innkeeper’s heightened duty of care on contractors without explicit guidance from Puerto Rico courts, creating uncertainty for both hospitality businesses and injured guests seeking accountability for preventable deaths.
For practitioners in Puerto Rico hospitality litigation, the case underscores the importance of clear contractual allocation of safety responsibilities and the critical role of regulatory permits in defining liability scope. The pending certification suggests that Puerto Rico courts may expand the heightened duty of care doctrine beyond traditional innkeepers, potentially affecting how contractors structure agreements and allocate insurance coverage for beachfront and water-adjacent operations.