Andrews v. Marriott International, Inc.
2016 IL App (1st) 122731
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Erin Andrews was secretly recorded in her hotel room at The Blackwell Inn (owned/operated by Ohio State University) after another guest, Michael Barrett, obtained the room next door and used a modified peephole to record and publish videos.
- Andrews sued Preferred Hotel Group (Preferred), which provides marketing and an online booking platform (iBook) to member hotels including Blackwell, alleging negligence and invasion of privacy based on Preferred’s role in disclosure/assignment that enabled Barrett.
- Andrews’ theories: (1) Preferred and OSU/Blackwell were joint venturers in operating the hotel; or (2) Preferred voluntarily assumed a duty to protect guests’ privacy by imposing “Standards of Excellence” on member hotels.
- Preferred moved to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9), attaching the service agreement, affidavits, and deposition testimony showing: Preferred provides marketing/iBook services for fees, has no ownership interest, no employees at Blackwell, no access to full guest lists or room numbers, and Andrews did not book via iBook.
- After two years of discovery, the trial court granted dismissal, finding no joint venture and no voluntary undertaking by Preferred to protect guests beyond providing booking services and limited standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of joint venture between Preferred and OSU/Blackwell | Preferred exercised control via Standards of Excellence and shared in reservation fees, implying joint operation and vicarious liability | Relationship was a service contract: Preferred provided marketing/booking for fees, had no ownership, no profit/loss sharing, no control over operations or staff | No joint venture as matter of law; contract and discovery show only a service relationship |
| Voluntary assumption of duty to protect guest privacy (Restatement §324A) | Preferred’s Standards of Excellence (including two privacy-related standards), inspections, and branding show it undertook a duty to protect guests’ privacy | Preferred only provided booking platform and advisory standards, had no employees at the hotel, no access to guest identity/room data, and did not render services for Andrews’ protection | No voluntary undertaking: scope limited to reservation services and two narrow standards; insufficient to create duty to third parties |
| Sufficiency of 2-619 procedure / misdesignation as summary judgment | Motion was a disguised summary judgment; dismissal improper without proper summary judgment procedure | Whether called 2-619 or summary judgment, Andrews declined to show prejudice; extensive discovery was permitted on the issues | No prejudice shown; treating the motion as 2-619 was appropriate given the affidavits and discovery |
| Burden to overcome affirmative matter on 2-619(a)(9) | Plaintiff argued factual disputes prevented dismissal | Defendant presented affidavits, agreement, and deposition showing affirmative matter negating duty/joint venture; plaintiff produced no counter-affidavits or proof | Plaintiff failed to rebut affirmative matter; dismissal under 2-619(a)(9) affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Meter v. Darien Park Dist., 207 Ill. 2d 359 (discusses purpose of section 2-619 motions and similarity to summary judgment)
- Peterson v. Randhava, 313 Ill. App. 3d 1 (misdesignation of motion not fatal if nonmovant not prejudiced)
- Raintree Homes, Inc. v. Village of Long Grove, 209 Ill. 2d 248 (test for genuine issue of material fact on dismissal)
- Illinois Graphics Co. v. Nickum, 159 Ill. 2d 469 (definition of affirmative matter under section 2-619)
- LaFever v. Kemlite Co., 185 Ill. 2d 380 (duty is a question of law)
- Pippin v. Chicago Housing Auth., 78 Ill. 2d 204 (application of Restatement §324A and limits on voluntary undertaking)
- Nelson v. Union Wire Rope Corp., 31 Ill. 2d 69 (example where defendant’s active safety services created a duty)