Luxury Hotel Chain not Liable in Jewelry Theft Case - Summary Judgment Granted

October 1, 2003

Steven L. Smilay, Corine Zygelman and Gina E. Och successfully defended a case involving a luxury hotel chains's liability in federal court. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against defendant for failing to provide adequate security for valuables.

Plaintiffs alleged that, while they were registered guests at the defendant's hotel, their jewelry valued by plaintiffs to be between $100,000 and $300,000, was allegedly taken by an unidentified person from a locker at the hotel spa. As a consequence, the plaintiffs further alleged that the hotel failed to provide either security or "adequate advice" to its guests and failed to "provide for a secure place to be theft-free while plaintiffs were present on the property."

The defense filed a motion for summary judgment based on the California innkeeper statutes codified at California Civil Code Sections 1859 and 1860, whereby a hotelkeeper's liability is barred if certain conditions are met. In particular, Section1860 frees a hotelkeeper from all liability if it keeps a fireproof safe, notifies guests of the safe, and the guest chooses not to deposit his or her property in the safe for safekeeping. In this case, the plaintiffs were advised of the firerproof safe on the hotel's premises, but chose instead to keep the jewelry in a little white box, which was kept in a purse. Moreover, despite the claimed value of the jewelry, the plaintiffs stored the purse in a locker at the spa while plaintiffs were using the hotel spa. Consequently, based on the California Innkeeper statutes, plaintiffs were barred from asserting any liability against the hotel arising from the theft of the jewelry from the locker.

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defense.