Stenlund v. Marriott International, Inc.
172 F. Supp. 3d 874
D. Maryland2016Background
- Plaintiff fell on stairs in the Royal Casino at the Panama City Marriott and sued Marriott International for negligence and vicarious liability after allegedly tripping over an electrical cord and receiving inadequate post-accident care.
- The Royal Casino was owned by Hotel Properties of Panama, Inc.; the hotel was managed by Marriott Services (a subsidiary), and Marriott International (parent) executed an International Agreement providing marketing, training, and corporate support but was not party to the Management Agreement between Hotel Properties and Marriott Services.
- Management Agreement and subsequent amendments defined the Casino as a separate, independently operated area with distinct entrances, branding, and separate casino operator; Marriott Services had management control over the hotel but not casino gaming operations.
- Marriott International exercised limited oversight via corporate services, branding/reservation systems, and an internal Casino Oversight Committee that performed annual quality-assurance reviews for Category II casinos.
- Plaintiff relied on Marriott-branded marketing describing an "on-site" casino and argued Marriott International either actually controlled or was the apparent principal of the entities operating the hotel/casino; defendant moved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Marriott International can be held liable under actual agency/master-servant theory for the casino/hotel employees' negligence | Stenlund: Marriott tightly controlled hotel/casino operations through contracts, policies, training and oversight, creating actual agency or control | Marriott: Contracts show limited corporate support; management/control of hotel/casino rested with Hotel Properties and Marriott Services (separate entities); parent not liable for acts of subsidiaries | Court: No actual agency/master-servant relationship; Marriott's role was limited corporate oversight and did not control the instrumentality causing injury; summary judgment for Marriott |
| Whether apparent agency/apparent authority exists based on Marriott branding and reservations/marketing | Stenlund: Marketing and on-site descriptions led her to reasonably believe Marriott owned/operated the casino/hotel, justifying apparent agency | Marriott: Branding, separate casino entrances, distinct uniforms and contractual restrictions show the casino was separate; marketing simply noted location, not ownership/control | Court: Objective reasonableness fails—distinctive branding and contractual separateness negate apparent agency; Panama law also does not recognize apparent agency; summary judgment for Marriott |
| Choice of law for substantive tort claims (Maryland vs. Panama) | Stenlund: Preferred Maryland law | Marriott: Lex loci delicti points to Panama; but result would be same under either law | Court: Applied choice-of-law rules and concluded Panama law governs (place of injury), but outcome same under Maryland or Panamanian law; Court relied on both analyses |
| Whether corporate veil or other principles justify piercing to impose liability on parent | Stenlund: Implied argument that parent can be liable given subsidiary control | Marriott: No basis shown to pierce corporate form; parent not automatically liable for subsidiary acts | Court: No evidence or argument sufficient to pierce veil; parent not liable absent exceptional circumstances; summary judgment for Marriott |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment and evaluation of evidence)
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (choice-of-law in diversity cases)
- DiFederico v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 714 F.3d 796 (franchisor/franchisee control analysis in hotel liability context)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Lesch, 570 A.2d 840 (Md. Ct. App.) (distinguishing agent vs. servant; control as key to vicarious liability)
- Crinkley v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 844 F.2d 156 (4th Cir.) (apparent agency theory facts where national advertising and directories may support jury finding)
- Bradford v. Jai Med. Sys. Managed Care Org., Inc., 93 A.3d 697 (Md. 2014) (elements of apparent agency and objective reasonableness)