Deauville Hotel Management v. Ward

219 So.3d 949 (2017)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

On February 17, 2010, P signed the contract with D to hold her wedding reception in the hotel's Richelieu ballroom on July 9, 2010. The contract did not specify in which room or area of the hotel the wedding would be held and, instead, referred to the 'function space.' The contract stated that: Function space is assigned, and reassigned if needed, to accommodate both the GROUP and all other parties who are using the HOTEL facilities during the GROUP'S event dates. THE GROUP agrees to promptly notify the HOTEL of any changes in function space requirements and/or attendance. The contract also contained the following provision regarding the hotel's cancellation policy: If Hotel cancels this Agreement or is unable to provide the requested space, the Hotel will work with Group to arrange alternative space at the prices set forth herein. Hotel will arrange for comparable space in the same vicinity of the Hotel and shall provide, without charge, necessary transportation between the alternative site and the Hotel. Hotel's liability is limited to these remedies, and Hotel shall not be liable for any consequential, punitive or special damages. Nine days before the wedding, on June 30, 2010, the city of Miami Beach red-tagged (i.e., shut down) D's three ballrooms as unsafe and in violation of certain building codes. D did not inform P. Staff was instructed to continue the preparations for the reception as planned. D attempted to have the red-tag removed a number of times. On July 8, the day before the wedding, the hotel filed an emergency motion for temporary injunction against the city to allow access to the ballrooms. D was unsuccessful. An emergency inspection was conducted on the day of the wedding, but because no repairs had been made, the ballroom remained closed. P learned of the shutdown hours before their wedding on July 9. D moved the reception to its lobby which was too small for the 190 guests; the tables were 'crammed' in the space; there was no privacy for the event; the disc jockey playing music was told numerous times to lower the volume; and hotel guests were walking through the wedding reception (some in their bathing suits) and participating in the reception (clapping during the introduction of the wedding party). P sued for breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury found in favor of P on her breach of contract claim and awarded her $23,000 in compensatory damages. P's husband was a third-party beneficiary to the contract and suffered damages in the amount of $2,500. The jury found that the hotel engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct and awarded damages in the amount of $5,000. D appealed. D contends there was no breach as the contract between P did not specify that the wedding would be held in the Richelieu ballroom; and the jury's damage award exceeded what the law allowed and the evidence supported. D argues, as to the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, that a directed verdict should have been granted because its conduct was not, as a matter of law, extreme and outrageous.