25-1064
1st Cir.
Jul 15, 2026
Read the full case

Background

  • Two hotel guests drowned after entering the ocean fronting the Marriott in Carolina, Puerto Rico, during rip-current warnings that had not been communicated to them by the hotel. 1
  • Marriott had contracted with Iguana to provide towel and beach attendants and to support beach-area operations, while Iguana also held certain local permits for use of the maritime-terrestrial zone. 2
  • Appellants sued Iguana and others, alleging failure to warn guests, provide safety measures, and satisfy Puerto Rico’s heightened duty of care for hotels and innkeepers. 3
  • The district court granted summary judgment to Iguana, holding it owed no duty under the contract, the permit, or Puerto Rico law. 4
  • The First Circuit reviewed the summary judgment and Puerto Rico-law issues de novo, and identified unresolved state-law questions concerning whether Iguana could be treated as an innkeeper or otherwise subject to a heightened duty. 5
  • The court certified those dispositive Puerto Rico-law questions to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court and retained jurisdiction. 6

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Did Iguana’s contract with Marriott create a duty to protect guests? 7 Iguana effectively operated the beach area and assumed guest-safety duties. Iguana only had towel and beach-attendant duties, not security or lifeguard duties. No contractual duty to protect guests was shown. 8
Did the DNER permit impose a duty to protect guests from ocean dangers? 9 Permit conditions required safety and prudence, including warning of rip currents. The permit’s safety duties were limited to Iguana’s 250-square-foot operating area, not the ocean. No duty under the permit was established. 10
Does Puerto Rico’s heightened duty of care apply to Iguana? 11 Iguana acted as an innkeeper or otherwise performed services warranting heightened care. Only hotels/innkeepers owe that duty, and Iguana was merely a beach-services contractor. Unresolved under Puerto Rico law; questions certified to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court. 12

Key Cases Cited

  • Axis Ins. Co. v. Barracuda Networks, Inc., 160 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2025) (summary judgment facts are viewed in the nonmovant’s favor 13)
  • John B. Cruz Constr. Co. v. Beacon Comtys. Corp., 169 F.4th 89 (1st Cir. 2026) (summary judgment and statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo 14)
  • Hosp. San Antonio, Inc. v. Oquendo-Lorenzo, 47 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2022) (federal courts look to Puerto Rico Supreme Court precedent and predict unsettled Puerto Rico law 15)
  • De-Jesus-Adorno v. Browning Ferris Indus. of P.R., Inc., 160 F.3d 839 (1st Cir. 1998) (legal duties may arise from statute, contract, custom, or special relationship 16)
  • Elba A.B.M. v. Univ. of P.R., 125 D.P.R. 294 (P.R. 1990) (schools, hospitals, and hotels owe a heightened standard of care 17)
  • Mattei Nazario v. Vélez & Asociados, 145 D.P.R. 508 (P.R. 1998) (contractual duties may be express or implied 18)
  • Blomquist v. Horned Dorset Primavera, Inc., 925 F.3d 541 (1st Cir. 2019) (hotels and innkeepers must ensure areas accessible to guests are safe 19)
  • Woods-Leber v. Hyatt Hotels of P.R., Inc., 124 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 1997) (innkeepers owe guests a duty of reasonable safety, not strict liability 20)
  • Banco Bilbao Vizcaya v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 195 D.P.R. 39 (P.R. 2016) (courts begin with the text when construing statutes 21)
  • Marcial v. Tomé, 144 D.P.R. 522 (P.R. 1997) (clear contract terms are given their literal meaning 22)
  • Montalbán v. Centro Comercial Plaza Carolina, 132 D.P.R. 785 (P.R. 1993) (some contractors/businesses are outside heightened-duty doctrine 23)
  • Carrasquillo-Ortiz v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 812 F.3d 195 (1st Cir. 2016) (federal courts should not answer unsettled Puerto Rico-law issues that belong to the Commonwealth courts 24)
  • Santiago-Hodge v. Parke Davis & Co., 859 F.2d 1026 (1st Cir. 1988) (comity counsels against resolving unresolved Puerto Rico-law questions ourselves 25)
  • Vázquez-Filippetti v. Banco Popular de P.R., 504 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2007) (a negligence plaintiff must show the defendant breached a duty of prudent conduct 26)
  • Grajales-Romero v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 194 F.3d 288 (1st Cir. 1999) (apparent-agency liability runs against the apparent principal 27)
  • Zannino, United States v., 895 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1990) (perfunctory arguments are waived 28)
Read the full case