Negligence – Resort – Ownership

Listen to this article

Where an action for damages has been brought arising out of a fall on a staircase at a resort in Sint Maarten, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment based on the defendant’s lack of ownership or possession of the property.

“Plaintiffs Tenna and Timothy Ingle brought this action for damages arising out of Tenna Ingle’s fall on a staircase at the Sonesta Maho Beach Resort, Casino & Spa in Sint Maarten (‘Sonesta Maho Beach Resort’). Pending before the court is Defendant Sonesta International Hotels Corp.’s (‘Sonesta International’) Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 36]. For the reasons explained below, the Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. …

“In December 1967, the Government of Sint Maarten granted a long-term lease of certain property located in Sint Maarten to Resort of the World N.V. (‘Resort of the World’). …

“In 2004, Sonesta Licensing Corporation (‘Sonesta Licensing’) and Resort of the World entered into a License Agreement, … granting Resort of the World a ‘license and franchise to operate the Maho Breach Resort & Casino’ on the property. … Sonesta International is not a party to this agreement.

“In March 2018, Resort of the World and Maho Hotel Operations BV (‘Maho Operations’) entered into a Hotel Lease and Operations Agreement. … Pursuant to that agreement, Maho Operations leases the Sonesta Maho Beach Resort from Resort of the World ‘for the purpose of running and operating’ it. … In April 2018, an Amendment to and Assignment and Assumption of License Agreement was entered into between Sonesta Licensing (as Licensor), Resort of the World (as Assignor) and Maho Operations (as Assignee), whereby Resort of the World assigned its rights, duties, and obligations under the License Agreement to Maho Operations. … Sonesta International is not a party to either of these agreements. …

“Sonesta International argues on summary judgment that Plaintiffs cannot prevail against Sonesta International on the negligence claims because Sonesta International does not own, operate, or manage the premises where the injury occurred, and on the loss of consortium claim because that claim is derivative of the negligence claims. …

“Sonesta International argues that it owed no duty to Plaintiffs because it did not own, operate, or possess the property where Tenna Ingle was injured. Plaintiffs do not dispute Sonesta International’s lack of ownership or possession of the property. … It is also undisputed that Sonesta International is not a party to the License Agreement, Hotel Lease and Operations Agreement, or Amendment to and Assignment and Assumption of License Agreement discussed above.

“Accordingly, Sonesta International’s motion for summary judgment is granted as to Counts I and II. …

“Sonesta International argues that Timothy Ingle’s loss of consortium claim due to Tenna Ingle’s injuries is entirely derivative of her negligence claims and thus fails with those claims. Plaintiffs do not respond to this argument.

“Accordingly, Sonesta International’s motion for summary judgment as to Count III is granted as unopposed.”

Ingle, et al. v. Sonesta International Hotels Corp., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-524-25) (7 pages) (Talwani, J.) (Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-10855-IT) (Sept. 25, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.