- 1 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.

LAUREN BARHAM and MATTHEW UREY,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD. and

ID TOURS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED,

Defendants.

/

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs sue Defendants and allege:

JURISDICTIONAL AND PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS

1. The Plaintiff, LAUREN BARHAM, is a citizen of Virginia.

1

2. The Plaintiff, MATTHEW UREY, is a citizen of Virginia.

3. Defendant, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD. (hereinafter “RCCL”), is a foreign 

entity under the Republic of Liberia with its principal place of business in Florida.

4. Defendant, ID TOURS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (hereinafter “Excursion Entity”), 

upon information and belief, is an entity based in New Zealand. 

5. The matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum specified by 28 

U.S.C. § 1332. In the alternative, if diversity jurisdiction does not apply, then this matter falls 

under the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of this Court.

1 Plaintiffs were married on October 18, 2019, and the incident involved in this lawsuit occurred 

on their honeymoon. Due to the catastrophic injuries that resulted from the incident, LAUREN 

BARHAM has been unable to legally change her last name. However, this will happen in due 

course and Plaintiffs will amend accordingly. 

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 1 of 46
- 2 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

6. The causes of action asserted in this Complaint arise under the General Maritime Law of

the United States.

7. At all times material hereto, RCCL, personally or through an agent:

a. Operated, conducted, engaged in or carried on a business venture in this state and/or 

county or had an office or agency in this state and/or county; 

b. Was engaged in substantial activity within this state;

c. Operated vessels in the waters of this state; 

d. Committed one or more of the acts stated in Florida Statutes §§ 48.081, 48.181 and/or 

48.193; 

e. The acts of RCCL set out in this Complaint occurred in whole or in part in this county 

and/or state.

f. RCCL was engaged in the business of providing to the public and to the Plaintiffs in 

particular, for compensation, vacation cruises aboard their vessels.

8. RCCL is subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts of this state.

The Excursion Entity’s contract with RCCL meets all requirements to

satisfy a finding of specific jurisdiction under Florida Statute § 48.193(1)(a)(9).

9. At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entity entered into a contract with RCCL 

concerning the subject excursion, which, upon information and belief, (a) contains a choice-of-law 

clause designating Florida law as the governing law; (b) contains a provision whereby the 

Excursion Entity agreed to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Florida; (c) involves 

consideration of not less than $250,000 or relate to an obligation arising out of a transaction 

involving in the aggregate not less than $250,000; (d) does not violate the U.S. Constitution; and 

(e) has at least one party of the contract that is a resident of Florida or incorporated under the laws 

of Florida. Therefore, the contract between RCCL and the Excursion Entity meets all requirements 

to satisfy a finding of specific jurisdiction under Florida Statute § 48.193(1)(a)(9).

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 2 of 46
- 3 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

The Excursion Entity’s continuous and systematic general business contacts with

Florida satisfy a finding of general jurisdiction under Florida Statute § 48.193(2).

10. At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entity has engaged in substantial and not 

isolated activity within this state, including, but not limited to: (a) reaching out to cruise lines in 

Florida and establishing long-term partnerships with them; (b) deriving a substantial portion of 

their revenues from their business with Florida-based cruise lines; (c) periodically traveling to 

Miami to meet with cruise line executives for purposes of maintaining the business relationships 

and/or obtaining new business; (d) procuring insurance through companies in Florida; (e) 

maintaining Florida entities as “Agents of Record” for insurance purposes; (f) agreeing to insure 

and indemnify entities in Florida; (g) signing premium financing agreements with Florida entities 

in order to obtain a loan to pay for liability insurance premiums; (h) buying parts and/or supplies 

from Florida-based suppliers to operate their excursions; (i) signing powers of attorney and/or 

appointing attorneys-in-fact in Florida to carry out their Florida operations; and/or (j) participating 

in cruise industry trade shows in Miami (e.g., Sea trade).2

11. At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entity has been in the business of providing 

excursions to cruise line passengers in New Zealand through Florida-based cruise lines, including 

RCCL, Celebrity, Carnival and/or NCL. In entering into contracts with these Florida-based cruise 

lines, the Excursion Entity agreed to the exclusive jurisdiction of courts in Florida. Additionally, 

by being under contract with the Florida-based cruise lines, the Excursion Entity received the 

benefit of the cruise lines’ advertising and promotional efforts.

2 At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entity’s arrangement with the Florida-based cruise lines and 

the circumstances of this case are markedly different than those at issue in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. 

Ct. 746 (2014). Herein, unlike Daimler, the Plaintiffs are suing a Florida-based cruise line (RCCL) for 

injuries sustained while participating in an excursion operated by an agent of the cruise line (the Excursion 

Entity) – an agent set up almost exclusively to do business with cruise lines (a majority of which are based 

in Florida). Further unlike Daimler, RCCL is “at home” in this jurisdiction because RCCL maintains its 

principal place of business in Florida. Thus, under Daimler, the Excursion Entity is also deemed “at home” 

in this jurisdiction by its direct and indirect contacts with Florida (through the Florida-based cruise lines).

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 3 of 46
- 4 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

The Excursion Entity’s activities in Florida satisfy

a finding of jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k).

12. At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entity is also subject to jurisdiction pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) because (a) the instant maritime tort claims arise under 

federal law; (b) the Excursion Entity is not subject to jurisdiction in any state’s courts of general 

jurisdiction; and (c) exercising jurisdiction over the Excursion Entity is consistent with the United 

States Constitution and laws based on the Excursion Entity’s minimum contacts with the United 

States as a whole such that the maintenance of this lawsuit does not offend traditional notions of 

fair play and substantial justice. These minimum contacts are set forth in the above allegations, 

and include, but are not limited to, the Excursion Entity’s location and operation in the United 

States, as well as marketing, promoting, and selling tickets for its excursions in the United States 

directly and/or through cruise lines as their agents located all over the United States.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

13. At all times material hereto, RCCL owned, operated, managed, maintained and/or 

controlled the vessel, Ovation of the Seas (hereinafter “the vessel”).

14. At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entity owned and/or operated the subject 

excursion, which was offered, arranged for, sponsored, recommended, marketed, sold, co-operated 

and/or managed by RCCL.

15. On or about December 9, 2019, Plaintiffs were paying passengers aboard the vessel, which 

was in navigable waters.

Promotional Material and Statements Concerning 

Shore Excursions Generally and the Subject Excursion Specifically

16. After booking the subject cruise, RCCL sent Plaintiffs promotional material, which 

provided information and descriptions of shore excursions, including the excursion entitled, 

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 4 of 46
- 5 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

“White Island Volcano Experience Cruise and Guided Exploration” (hereinafter “subject 

excursion”).

17. In addition to the promotional material sent to Plaintiffs, RCCL’s website contained 

information and descriptions of shore excursions, including the subject excursion. Tickets for 

shore excursions, including the subject excursion, were also available for sale on RCCL’s website. 

18. RCCL also had promotional materials at its shore excursion desk aboard the vessel and/or 

other areas of the ship with information and descriptions of shore excursions, including the subject 

excursion. Tickets for shore excursions, including the subject excursion, were also available for 

sale at RCCL’s shore excursion desk aboard the vessel.

19. Among the foregoing promotional material RCCL made available and/or provided to 

Plaintiffs was its brochure (the Shore Excursion Guide), which contained the following 

information regarding shore excursions marketed and sold by RCCL to its passengers and 

Plaintiffs:

a. Shore excursions and/or excursion operators were described in proprietary language, 

with RCCL referring to them as “our destination experts,” “Royal Caribbean Shore 

Excursions,” and/or “our various shore excursions”; and

b. RCCL represented that it actively participated in the operation of the shore excursions 

(i.e.: “We team up with the top tour operators in each port to deliver the highest-quality, 

handpicked tours.”).

For example, the photograph below depicts the promotional material and information made 

available on RCCL’s brochure:

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 5 of 46
- 6 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

20. Also among the foregoing promotional material RCCL made available and/or provided to 

Plaintiffs was its website, which contained the following information regarding shore excursions 

marketed and sold by RCCL to its passengers and Plaintiffs:

a. Shore excursions and/or excursion operators were described in proprietary language, 

with RCCL referring to them as “its tour operators” and/or “our Destination Insiders”;

b. Shore excursions and/or excursion operators were “Certified for Quality,” with RCCL 

representing that it “thoroughly reviewed its tour operators,” including each 

excursion’s “guide” that “provides proper equipment and ensures the safety of gear 

used on active excursions...”; and

c. Shore excursions and/or excursion operators were deemed to be “reputable and 

insured.”

For example, the photographs below depict the promotional material and information made 

available on RCCL’s website:

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 6 of 46
- 7 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 7 of 46
- 8 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

21. With regard to the subject excursion specifically, RCCL’s promotional material and 

information (including its website description shown below), RCCL only referred to White Island 

as “one of the most active volcanoes in the world.” The potential danger of participating in this 

excursion was not open or obvious to the Plaintiffs based on this description because an “active” 

volcano is defined as a volcano that has had at least one eruption during the past 10,000 years. 

Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, however, this particular volcano had erupted multiple times in the past 

ten years, with the most recent being merely three years before the subject cruise, in 2016. In fact, 

the volcano had erupted in 2016, 2013, 2012, 2000 and several times in the 1980s! However, 

RCCL did not notify, warn, or disclose the history of four eruptions since 2000. Furthermore, the 

volcano was showing signs of unrest for several weeks before the subject eruption. For instance,

volcanic tremors and sulphur dioxide gas were at their highest levels since the last eruption in 

2016, indicating that an eruption was more likely to occur. In addition, a few weeks prior to the 

subject excursion, the volcano’s alert level was raised to a level 2 (the highest level it can be when 

it is not erupting), indicating a heightened volcanic unrest due to the increased activity. 

Additionally, two weeks prior to the subject eruption, there was a 5.9 earthquake with an epicenter

located approximately 6.2 miles northeast of the volcano – a notable piece of information since 

seismic activity provides an increased risk of hydrothermal eruptions due to a reduction of pressure 

within the geothermal system. Yet RCCL failed to notify passengers of (1) the numerous eruptions 

since 2000, (2) the heightened volcanic activity in the several weeks leading up to the excursion, 

(3) the significant changes in the volcanic activity that led to the increased alert level, (4) the 

seismic activity in the area leading to an increased risk of eruption; or (5) any indication, 

notification, or warning of any increased danger whatsoever, or direction for passengers to refer 

to a specific source to obtain such information and make an informed decision for themselves. In 

addition, while RCCL classified the excursion as “strenuous,” such classification merely warned 

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 8 of 46
- 9 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

passengers to consider their “physical fitness level and medical history” when determining whether 

the tour was appropriate for them and countered that classification by stating, “Since the majority 

of the volcano sits beneath the sea, you head straight to the action without much, if any, climbing 

at all.” Finally, RCCL failed to mention or warn of any risk of death or severe injuries whatsoever.

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 9 of 46
- 10 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

22. The information and/or material RCCL made available and/or distributed to passengers 

concerning shore excursions, including the Plaintiffs concerning the subject excursion, was based 

on the description and/or information provided to RCCL by the Excursion Entity and/or by 

RCCL’s inspections and/or approval of the subject excursion and/or of the Excursion Entity. 

Accordingly, Defendants undertook a duty to accurately advise passengers, including the 

Plaintiffs, concerning the subject excursion in order to obtain a profit for Defendants, and 

Defendants were required to execute that duty utilizing reasonable care under the circumstances.

Subject Incident

23. Relying on the safety and reputability of RCCL as well as RCCL’s representations 

regarding its shore excursions, including the subject excursion, Plaintiffs purchased the ticket for 

the subject excursion directly from RCCL and/or received the excursion ticket directly from RCCL 

aboard the vessel. The Plaintiffs obtained all of the information regarding the subject excursion 

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 10 of 46
- 11 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

from RCCL and made all of the reservation arrangements for the subject excursion exclusively 

with RCCL. In turn, RCCL received a portion of Plaintiffs’ ticket price for the subject excursion.

24. The Plaintiffs reviewed RCCL’s information and/or material concerning the subject 

excursion and relied upon RCCL’s representations exclusively and to Plaintiffs’ detriment in 

deciding to purchase the subject excursion from RCCL and to participate in same during Plaintiffs’

cruise aboard the vessel.

25. Based upon RCCL’s information and/or material concerning the subject excursion, 

Plaintiffs reasonably understood that RCCL conducted regular inspections of the excursion 

location, volcanic activity, and operators of the subject excursion to ensure that they were 

reasonably safe, and Plaintiffs relied upon such understanding to Plaintiffs’ detriment in deciding 

to purchase the subject excursion from RCCL and to participate in same during Plaintiffs’ cruise 

aboard the vessel.

26. On or about December 9, 2019, as part of Plaintiffs’ cruise aboard the vessel, which was 

for the Plaintiffs’ honeymoon, Plaintiffs participated in the subject excursion in New Zealand. 

This excursion was arranged for, sponsored, recommended, operated, marketed and/or sold by 

RCCL as part of the cruise aboard the vessel. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs at the time, the excursion 

was operated by the Excursion Entity.

27. At the beginning of the excursion, the tour guides did not inform passengers and/or the 

Plaintiffs of the increased alert levels, the increased volcanic activity and/or the increased risk of 

eruption. The passengers were taken to what appeared to be the center of the volcano. Shortly 

thereafter, the volcano erupted, and as a result, Plaintiffs sustained severe burns. Mr. Urey 

sustained burns to 54% of his body, with 30%-39% being third-degree burns; and Ms. Barham 

sustained burns to 23% of her body, with 10%-19% being third-degree burns, depicted below.

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 11 of 46
- 12 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

Matthew Urey’s Burns

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 12 of 46
- 13 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

Lauren Barham’s Burns

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 13 of 46
- 14 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

28. After the incident, RCCL canceled all shore excursions to active volcanoes, including the 

subject excursion. This action should have been taken before Plaintiffs’ incident, especially 

considering that RCCL knew or should have known that the subject excursion was unreasonably 

hazardous before the subject incident occurred.

RCCL’s Notice of the Dangerous Excursion and/or Incompetent Provider

29. At all times material hereto, RCCL knew or should have known that the subject excursion 

was unreasonably hazardous and/or was not competently operated by properly trained and/or 

supervised persons for reasons that include, but are not limited to, (1) the excursion taking place 

in a volcano that was active multiple times just a few years before the incident; (2) the failure to 

routinely monitor volcanic alert levels and/or volcanic activity; (3) the failure to notify passengers 

of the increased alert levels, the increased volcanic activity and/or the increased risk of eruption; 

and/or (4) the decision to proceed with the excursion despite the increased volcanic alert levels, 

without adequately notifying passengers of the risk entailed.

30. Prior to the subject incident, RCCL was or should have been on notice that the excursion 

was not reasonably safe for passengers based on its initial approval process and/or its yearly 

inspections of the subject excursion. Specifically, in approving and offering the subject excursion 

to its passengers, RCCL conducted an investigation of the excursion and/or the Excursion Entity. 

In doing so, RCCL assumed a duty to perform such investigation with reasonable care. Even a 

cursory look into White Island would have revealed that the volcano was active numerous times 

in the past ten years. This information should have been enough for RCCL to realize the volcanic 

activity level was too high and the risk was too great for its passengers.

31. Also prior to the subject incident, RCCL was or should have been on notice that the 

excursion was not reasonably safe for passengers based on prior incidents of eruptions during 

volcano tours resulting in injuries to tourists. For instance, approximately 1.5 years before the 

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 14 of 46
- 15 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

subject incident, a group of tourists were injured when a volcano in Hawaii (Kilauea) erupted

during their tour. Royal Caribbean was aware of the incident because, due to the eruption and/or 

injuries, it temporarily canceled cruises and/or tours scheduled to visit the area.3 This incident 

should have been enough for RCCL to realize that tours to active volcanoes were unreasonably 

dangerous. RCCL should have canceled all excursions to active volcanoes then, instead of waiting 

for dozens of its own passengers to be injured or killed.

32. In addition, RCCL knew or should have known that there was a high potential for the 

volcano to erupt during Plaintiffs’ excursion based on the increased alert level issued by New 

Zealand’s volcano monitoring service, GeoNet, weeks before Plaintiffs’ cruise. (New Zealand’s 

Volcanic Alert System is included below for reference.)

3

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/28/travel/hawaii-tourism-kilauea-volcano-eruption.html

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 15 of 46
- 16 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

33. Specifically, on October 30, 2019 (approximately six weeks before the incident), the 

Volcanic Alert Level was at 1, but the Volcanic Alert Bulletin noted there was “an increase in 

activity...” The bulletin went on to state that “[o]ver the last several months, [GeoNet] observed 

a change in the amount of SO2 gas output and level of volcanic tremor. Both show[ed] an 

increasing trend and [were] at the highest level since 2016[,]” which was the last time the same 

volcano erupted.

34. On November 18, 2019 (three weeks before the incident), the Volcanic Alert Level was 

raised to 2, which is the highest level it can be when it is not erupting, as demonstrated above.

According to the Volcanic Alert Bulletin, “monitored parameters show[ed] further increases in 

activity. Hazards on the island [were] now greater than during the past few weeks.... The patterns 

of signals [were] similar to those through the 2011-2016 period and suggest[ed] that 

Whakaari/White Island may be entering a period where eruptive activity is more likely than 

normal...”

35. On November 25, 2019 (two weeks before the incident), the Volcanic Alert Level remained 

at 2. The Volcanic Alert Bulletin stated “no new changes [were] observed[,]” and it reiterated 

that “[t]he monitoring observations [were] similar to those seen in the more active 2011-2016 

period and suggest[ed] that Whakaari/White Island may be entering a period where eruptive 

activity is more likely than normal.”

36. On December 3, 2019 (less than one week before the incident), the Volcanic Alert Level 

remained at 2, and the Volcanic Alert Bulletin said “[m]oderate volcanic unrest continue[d] at 

Whakaari/White Island, with substantial gas, steam and mud bursts observed... Overall, the 

monitored parameters continue[d] to be in the expected range for moderate volcanic unrest and 

associated hazards exist[ed]. The monitoring observations bear some similarities with those seen 

during the 2011-2016 period when Whakaari/White Island was more active and stronger volcanic 

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 16 of 46
- 17 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

activity occurred. Observations and data to date suggest[ed] that the volcano may be entering a 

period where eruptive activity is more likely than normal.”

37. At all times material hereto, RCCL knew or should have known of the above volcanic 

alert levels by directly monitoring the levels itself or being informed of such levels by the 

Excursion Entity. 

38. Further, with RCCL offering the subject excursion to its passengers and, thus knowing that 

its passengers may encounter potential hazards or dangers in the area of the excursion, RCCL had 

a duty to warn its passengers of the hazards or dangers they may so encounter. See, e.g., Chaparro 

v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2012); Carlisle v. Ulysses Line Ltd., S.A., 475 So.2d 

248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (a cruise line owes its passengers a duty to warn of known dangers beyond 

the point of debarkation in places where passengers are invited or reasonably expected to visit). 

In addition to the increased alert level issued by New Zealand’s volcano monitoring service, 

GeoNet, weeks before the subject cruise, the following additional information was readily 

available to RCCL, and RCCL, in selling the subject excursion to its passengers, should have been 

aware of the following important information regarding the volcano:

a. The volcano erupted in 2016, 2013, 2012, 2000 and several times in the 1980s;

b. The volcano was showing signs of unrest for several weeks before the subject eruption 

– with volcanic tremors and sulphur dioxide gas at their highest levels since the last 

eruption in 2016, indicating that an eruption was more likely to occur; and

c. Two weeks prior to the subject eruption, there was a 5.9 earthquake with an epicenter

located approximately 6.2 miles northeast of the volcano – a notable piece of 

information since seismic activity provides an increased risk of hydrothermal eruptions 

due to a reduction of pressure within the geothermal system. 

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 17 of 46
- 18 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

COUNT I – NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION AGAINST RCCL

The Plaintiffs re-allege, adopt, and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 

one (1) through thirty-eight (38) as though alleged originally herein.

39. On or about May 27-29, 2019, Plaintiffs reviewed RCCL’s website and RCCL’s shore 

excursion brochure, including the information set forth in paragraphs 19-21 above. 

40. At all times material hereto, RCCL’s promotional material, including its website and/or 

brochure referenced above, which Plaintiffs reviewed, contained the statements and descriptions 

set forth in paragraphs 19-21 above.

41. At all times material hereto, RCCL’s promotional material, brochures and/or website 

contained misrepresentations of material facts, including:

a. Misrepresenting the activity level and/or activities involved in the subject excursion as 

“strenuous,” which merely warned passengers to consider their “physical fitness level 

and medical history” when determining whether the tour was appropriate for them, and

failed to mention the risk of death or severe injuries, as alleged in paragraph 21; and/or

b. Implying that RCCL “thoroughly reviews” and/or verifies whether excursion providers 

utilize the proper equipment and/or ensure the safety of the gear used on excursions, as 

alleged in paragraph 20(b), when in actuality, the Plaintiffs were not provided with any 

equipment or gear to prevent them from getting burned during the subject excursion; 

and/or

c. Misrepresenting that the excursion providers are “reputable,” as alleged in paragraph 

20(c), when in actuality, the subject excursion was not reasonably safe, for reasons 

alleged in paragraphs 27-38; and/or

d. Mispresenting shore excursions, including the subject excursion, as being RCCL’s

excursions through the use of proprietary language, as alleged in paragraphs 19(a) and 

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 18 of 46
- 19 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

20(a), when RCCL claims that it was an independent contractor’s (not RCCL’s) 

excursion; and/or

e. Representing that shore excursion providers are insured, as alleged in paragraph 20(c), 

when such insurance may not cover claims outside of the providers’ area of operation 

and/or may contain other limitations, such as the amount and types of claims covered; 

and/or

f. Representing and/or implying that excursion providers would be subject to personal 

jurisdiction in the United States and/or subject to United States and/or Florida law by 

contractually requiring all RCCL passengers (including the Plaintiffs) to file suit in a 

specific jurisdiction in the United States for all claims arising from the subject cruise 

(including incidents that occur while participating in shore excursions), pursuant to its 

ticket contract, and/or advertising that its excursion providers are insured, as alleged in 

paragraph 20(c), when in actuality, excursion providers (including the Excursion 

Entity) challenge this Court’s personal jurisdiction and have limited insurance coverage 

as alleged above.

42. At all times material hereto, the foregoing statements RCCL made and/or disseminated 

were known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been 

ascertained, to be false and/or misleading. 

a. RCCL’s initial approval process and/or yearly inspections of the Excursion Entity 

and/or the subject excursion, including, but not limited to, researching the volcano, 

having RCCL’s representative(s) take the excursion, conducting site inspections, and 

reviewing the Excursion Entity’s insurance, which did or should have revealed: (1) the 

excursion could result in death or severe injuries, thereby making it more serious than 

“strenuous”; (2) the excursion did not provide equipment or gear to prevent passengers

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 19 of 46
- 20 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

from getting burned; (3) the Excursion Entity and/or the subject excursion was not 

actually safe, reliable and/or reputable; and/or (4) the Excursion Entity’s insurance 

contained limitations.

b. RCCL’s own customs, practices, policies and/or procedures concerning: (1) its claim 

that excursions are provided by independent contractors and not RCCL, contrary to its 

representations; and/or (2) contractually requiring its passengers to file suit in a specific 

jurisdiction in the United States for all claims arising from the subject cruise (including 

incidents that occur while participating in shore excursions).

43. At all times material hereto, the statements were so made or disseminated with the intent 

or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of inducing passengers (including Plaintiffs) to rely on the 

statements and act by purchasing tickets for shore excursions (including the subject excursion), as 

evident in the photographs included in paragraphs 19-20.

44. As a result thereof, the Plaintiffs were injured about Plaintiffs’ body and extremity, suffered 

physical pain, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, disability, disfigurement, post-traumatic 

stress disorder and other mental and/or nervous disorders, aggravation of any previously existing 

conditions therefrom, incurred medical expenses in the care and treatment of Plaintiffs’ injuries, 

suffered physical handicap, lost earnings and lost earning capacity, both past and future. The 

injuries are permanent or continuing in nature and Plaintiffs will suffer the losses and impairments 

in the future. In addition, Plaintiffs lost the benefit of Plaintiffs’ vacation, cruise, and 

transportation costs future. 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment for all damages recoverable under the 

law and demand trial by jury.

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 20 of 46
- 21 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

COUNT II – NEGLIGENT SELECTION AND/OR RETENTION AGAINST RCCL

The Plaintiffs re-allege, adopt, and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 

one (1) through thirty-eight (38) as though alleged originally herein.

45. At all times material hereto, it was the duty of RCCL to provide Plaintiffs with reasonable 

care under the circumstances. 

46. At all times material hereto, RCCL had a duty to select and/or hire competent and/or fit 

excursion operators.

47. At all times material hereto, as part of its duty to select and/or hire competent and/or fit 

excursion operators, it was incumbent on RCCL to diligently inquire into the Excursion Entity’s 

competency and fitness. 

48. On or about December 9, 2019, RCCL and/or its agents, servants, joint venturers and/or 

employees breached its duty to provide Plaintiffs with reasonable care under the circumstances by 

selecting and/or retaining the Excursion Entity, which was incompetent and/or unfit based on the 

following:

a. The failure of the Excursion Entity to provide a reasonably safe excursion, considering 

the subject excursion was in a volcano that was active multiple times just a few years 

before the incident; and/or 

b. The failure of the Excursion Entity to routinely monitor volcanic alert levels and/or 

volcanic activity to determine whether it was reasonably safe for passengers; and/or

c. The failure of the Excursion Entity to have reasonably competent and/or trained and/or 

supervised individual(s) operating and/or leading the subject excursion, considering the 

tour guide did not notify passengers of the increased alert levels, the increased volcanic 

activity and/or the increased risk of eruption; and/or

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 21 of 46
- 22 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

d. The failure of the Excursion Entity to have reasonably competent and/or trained and/or 

supervised individual(s) operating and/or leading the subject excursion, considering 

their decision to proceed with the excursion despite the increased volcanic alert levels, 

without adequately notifying passengers of the risk entailed.

49. At all times material hereto, RCCL knew of the foregoing conditions causing the Excursion 

Entity’s incompetence and/or unfitness, or the conditions existed for a sufficient length of time so 

that RCCL, in the exercise of reasonable care under the circumstances, should have learned of 

them. This knowledge was or should have been acquired through: 

a. Prior incidents of eruptions during volcano tours resulting in injuries to tourists, 

including, but not limited to, the 2018 Kilauea eruption that RCCL was aware of, as 

alleged in paragraph 31, which did or should have revealed that the Excursion Entity’s 

excursion was not reasonably safe and/or was incompetently operated because (1) it 

was on an active volcano (like Kilauea) that had erupted multiple times just a few years 

before the incident; and/or (2) it was proceeding to conduct tours despite the increased 

volcanic alert levels. RCCL knew the excursion was not being canceled or postponed 

when the volcanic levels/activity increased because, despite the levels/activities 

increasing weeks before the incident (as discussed in paragraphs 32-38) and/or 

throughout their business relationship, RCCL sold tickets and paid the Excursion Entity 

for tours during that time period.

b. RCCL’s initial approval process and/or yearly inspections of the Excursion Entity 

and/or the subject excursion, including, but not limited to, researching the volcano, 

having RCCL’s representative(s) take the excursion, and conducting site inspections, 

as alleged in paragraph 30, which did or should have revealed: (1) the subject excursion 

was in a volcano that was active multiple times just a few years before the incident; 

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 22 of 46
- 23 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

(2) the volcanic alert levels and/or volcanic activity were not being routinely monitored 

to determine whether it was reasonably safe for passengers, as evidenced by the 

excursion not being canceled or postponed when the levels/activity increased, as they 

did weeks before this incident (discussed in paragraphs 32-38); (3) the tour guide(s)

did not notify passengers of the alert levels, the volcanic activity and/or the risk of 

eruption; (4) the Excursion Entity proceeded with the excursion despite the increased 

volcanic alert levels, without adequately notifying passengers of the risk entailed, as 

evidenced by the excursion not being canceled or postponed when the levels/activity 

increased, as they did weeks before this incident (discussed in paragraphs 32-38). 

RCCL knew the excursion was not being canceled or postponed when the volcanic 

levels/activity increased because, despite the levels/activities increasing weeks before 

the incident (as discussed in paragraphs 32-38) and/or throughout their business 

relationship, RCCL sold tickets and paid the Excursion Entity for tours during that time 

period.

c. Thoroughly inquiring into the Excursion Entity’s certification(s), reputation, reviews, 

prior incidents, years in operation, and/or history in working with other cruise lines, 

which did or should have revealed that the subject excursion was dangerous and/or not 

operated by a competent and fit operator for the reasons listed in paragraph 48(a)-(d).

d. Periodically requesting and examining safety history reports from the Excursion Entity 

as well as periodically sending RCCL’s own staff to visit the excursion site(s) and 

evaluate the excursion experience, which did or should have revealed that the subject 

excursion was dangerous and/or not operated by a competent and fit operator for the 

reasons listed in paragraph 48(a)-(d).

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 23 of 46
- 24 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

50. As a direct and proximate result of the Excursion Entity’s incompetence and/or unfitness, 

the Plaintiffs were severely injured while participating in the subject excursion because: (1) the 

subject excursion was in a volcano that was active multiple times just a few years before the 

incident; (2) the increased volcanic alert levels and/or volcanic activity made visiting the volcano 

unreasonably dangerous; (3) the tour guide did not notify passengers of the increased alert levels, 

the increased volcanic activity and/or the increased risk of eruption; and/or (4) the Excursion Entity 

proceeded with the excursion despite the increased volcanic alert levels, without adequately 

notifying passengers of the risk entailed. These factors caused and/or contributed to the Plaintiffs 

being severely burned. Therefore, the subject incident would not have occurred but for the 

Excursion Entity’s incompetence and/or unfitness.

51. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of RCCL, the Plaintiffs were injured 

about Plaintiffs’ body and extremity, suffered physical pain, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of 

life, disability, disfigurement, post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental and/or nervous 

disorders, aggravation of any previously existing conditions therefrom, incurred medical expenses 

in the care and treatment of Plaintiffs’ injuries, suffered physical handicap, lost earnings and lost 

earning capacity, both past and future. The injuries are permanent or continuing in nature and 

Plaintiffs will suffer the losses and impairments in the future. In addition, Plaintiffslost the benefit 

of Plaintiffs’ vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment for all damages recoverable under the 

law and demand trial by jury.

COUNT III – NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN AGAINST RCCL

The Plaintiffs re-allege, adopt, and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 

one (1) through thirty-eight (38) as though alleged originally herein.

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 24 of 46
- 25 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

52. At all times material hereto, it was the duty of RCCL to provide Plaintiffs with reasonable 

care under the circumstances.

53. At all times material hereto, it was the duty of RCCL to warn passengers (like Plaintiffs) 

of dangers that were known, or reasonably should have been known, to RCCL in places where 

passengers (like Plaintiffs) are invited to or may reasonably be expected to visit beyond the point 

of disembarkation.

54. On or about December 9, 2019, the Plaintiffs were participating in the subject excursion, 

which RCCL invited and reasonably expected Plaintiffs to participate in since RCCL sold 

Plaintiffs the tickets for the excursion.

55. On or about December 9, 2019, RCCL and/or its agents, servants, joint venturers and/or 

employees breached its duty to warn the Plaintiffs through the following acts and/or omissions:

a. Failure to adequately warn and/or communicate to passengers (including the Plaintiffs) 

of the dangers associated with participating in the subject excursion, including (1) the 

excursion taking place in a volcano that was active multiple times just a few years 

before the incident; (2) the increased alert levels, the increased volcanic activity and/or 

the increased risk of eruption; and/or (3) the risk of death or severe injuries; and/or

b. Failure to adequately warn and/or communicate to passengers (including the Plaintiffs) 

that RCCL does not inspect and/or monitor the Excursion Entity, the subject excursion,

the volcanic alert levels, and/or the volcanic activity, despite the subject excursion 

being promoted as “thoroughly reviewed” by RCCL; and/or

c. Failure to adequately warn and/or communicate to passengers (including the Plaintiffs) 

that RCCL does not verify that the subject excursion is reasonably safe and/or 

inspected, despite the subject excursion being promoted as “thoroughly reviewed” by 

RCCL; and/or

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 25 of 46
- 26 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

d. Failure to adequately warn and/or communicate to passengers (including the Plaintiffs) 

that the Excursion Entity is not adhering to highest safety standards in the industry, as 

evident by the hazard and/or incompetence involved with the subject excursion; and/or

e. Failure to adequately warn and/or communicate to passengers (including the Plaintiffs) 

that the Excursion Entity is not subject to jurisdiction in the United States, especially 

when RCCL contractually requires its passengers (including the Plaintiffs) to file suit 

in a specific jurisdiction in the United States for all claims arising from the subject 

cruise (including incidents that occur while participating in shore excursions); and/or

f. Failure to adequately warn and/or communicate to passengers (including the Plaintiffs) 

that the Excursion Entity carries independent insurance from the cruise line that has 

lower limits and more limited coverage than RCCL’s insurance; and/or

g. Failure to adequately warn and/or communicate to passengers (including the Plaintiffs) 

the limits of the Excursion Entity’s insurance.

56. The above acts and/or omissions caused and/or contributed to the Plaintiffs being severely 

injured while participating in the subject excursion because Plaintiffs would not have purchased 

tickets for and/or participated in the subject excursion had RCCL and/or its agents, servants, and/or 

employees adequately warned and/or communicated the following to the Plaintiffs: (a) the dangers 

associated with participating in the subject excursion, including (1) the excursion taking place in 

a volcano that was active multiple times just a few years before the incident; (2) the increased alert 

levels, the increased volcanic activity and/or the increased risk of eruption; and/or (3) the risk of 

death or severe injuries; (b) that RCCL does not inspect and/or monitor the Excursion Entity, the 

subject excursion, the volcanic alert levels and/or the volcanic activity; (c) that RCCL does not 

verify that the subject excursion is reasonably safe and/or inspected; (d) that the Excursion Entity 

was not adhering to highest safety standards in the industry; (e) that the Excursion Entity was not 

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 26 of 46
- 27 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

subject to jurisdiction in the United States; (f) that the Excursion Entity carries independent 

insurance from the cruise line that has lower limits and more limited coverage than RCCL’s 

insurance; and/or (g) the limits of the Excursion Entity’s insurance.

57. At all times material hereto, the subject excursion was unreasonably dangerous based on 

(1) the excursion taking place in a volcano that was active multiple times just a few years before 

the incident; (2) the failure to routinely monitor volcanic alert levels and/or volcanic activity; 

(3) the increased alert levels, the increased volcanic activity and/or the increased risk of eruption; 

and/or (4) the decision to proceed with the excursion despite the increased volcanic alert levels, 

without adequately notifying passengers of the risk entailed.

58. At all times material hereto, RCCL knew of the foregoing dangerous conditions causing 

the Plaintiffs’ incident and failed to warn Plaintiffs about them, or the conditions existed for a 

sufficient length of time so that RCCL, in the exercise of reasonable care under the circumstances, 

should have learned of them and warned about them. This knowledge was or should have been 

acquired through: 

a. Prior incidents of eruptions during volcano tours resulting in injuries to tourists, 

including, but not limited to, the 2018 Kilauea eruption that RCCL was aware of, as 

alleged in paragraph 31, which did or should have revealed that the dangers associated 

with participating in the subject excursion, including (1) the excursion taking place in 

a volcano that was active (like Kilauea) multiple times just a few years before the 

incident; and/or (2) the risk of death or severe injuries.

b. RCCL’s initial approval process and/or yearly inspections of the Excursion Entity 

and/or the subject excursion, including, but not limited to, researching the volcano, 

having RCCL’s representative(s) take the excursion, conducting site inspections, and 

reviewing the Excursion Entity’s insurance, which did or should have revealed: (a) the 

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 27 of 46
- 28 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

dangers associated with participating in the subject excursion, including (1) the 

excursion taking place in a volcano that was active multiple times just a few years 

before the incident; (2) the increased alert levels, the increased volcanic activity and/or 

the increased risk of eruption; and (3) the risk of death or severe injuries; (b) that RCCL

does not inspect and/or monitor the Excursion Entity, the subject excursion, the 

volcanic alert levels and/or the volcanic activity; (c) that RCCL does not verify that the 

subject excursion is reasonably safe and/or inspected; (d) that the Excursion Entity was 

not adhering to highest safety standards in the industry; (e) that the Excursion Entity 

was not subject to jurisdiction in the United States; (f) that the Excursion Entity carries 

independent insurance from the cruise line that has lower limits and more limited 

coverage than RCCL’s insurance; and/or (g) the limits of the Excursion Entity’s 

insurance.

c. RCCL knew the excursion was not being canceled or postponed when the volcanic 

levels/activity increased because, despite the levels/activities increasing weeks before 

the incident (as discussed in paragraphs 32-38) and/or throughout their business 

relationship, RCCL sold tickets and paid the Excursion Entity for tours during that time 

period.

59. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of RCCL, the Plaintiffs were injured 

about Plaintiffs’ body and extremity, suffered physical pain, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of 

life, disability, disfigurement, post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental and/or nervous 

disorders, aggravation of any previously existing conditions therefrom, incurred medical expenses 

in the care and treatment of Plaintiffs’ injuries, suffered physical handicap, lost earnings and lost 

earning capacity, both past and future. The injuries are permanent or continuing in nature and 

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 28 of 46
- 29 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

Plaintiffs will suffer the losses and impairments in the future. In addition, Plaintiffs lost the benefit 

of Plaintiffs’ vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment for all damages recoverable under the 

law and demand trial by jury.

COUNT IV – GENERAL NEGLIGENCE AGAINST RCCL

The Plaintiffs re-allege, adopt, and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 

one (1) through thirty-eight (38) as though alleged originally herein.

60. At all times material hereto, it was the duty of RCCL to provide Plaintiffs with reasonable 

or ordinary care under the circumstances.

61. On or about December 9, 2019, RCCL and/or its agents, servants, joint venturers and/or 

employees breached its duty to provide Plaintiffs with reasonable or ordinary care under the 

circumstances, based on the following acts and/or omissions:

a. Promoting the subject excursion as “thoroughly reviewed” by RCCL, thereby implying 

that the Excursion Entity and/or its operations were reasonably safe under the 

circumstances, when in fact they were not; and/or

b. Failure to promulgate and/or enforce adequate policies and/or procedures for the 

Excursion Entity to routinely monitor volcanic alert levels and/or volcanic activity and 

notify RCCL and/or passengers of such levels/activity; and/or

c. Failure to promulgate and/or enforce adequate policies and/or procedures for the 

Excursion Entity to notify passengers of the increased alert levels, the increased 

volcanic activity and/or the increased risk of eruption; and/or

d. Failure to promulgate and/or enforce adequate policies and/or procedures for the 

Excursion Entity to require that the excursion be canceled or postponed when the alert 

levels, volcanic activity and/or risk of eruption increased; and/or

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 29 of 46
- 30 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

e. Failing to cancel or postpone the excursion when the alert levels, volcanic activity 

and/or risk of eruption increased; and/or

f. Failure to regularly and/or adequately identify the highest safety standards in the 

industry for the activities offered in the subject excursion, and verify that the Excursion 

Entity is adhering to such standards.

62. The above acts and/or omissions caused and/or contributed to the Plaintiffs being severely 

injured while participating in the subject excursion, as follows:

a. The Plaintiffs would not have purchased tickets for and/or participated in the subject 

excursion but for RCCL (and/or its agents, servants, and/or employees) falsely 

implying that the Excursion Entity and/or its operations equipment were reasonably 

safe under the circumstances by promoting the subject excursion as “thoroughly 

reviewed” by RCCL.

b. The subject incident would not have occurred but for the failure of RCCL (and/or its 

agents, servants, and/or employees) to: (1) promulgate and/or enforce adequate policies 

and/or procedures (a) routinely monitor volcanic alert levels and/or volcanic activity 

and notify RCCL and/or passengers of such levels/activity; (b) notify passengers of the 

increased alert levels, the increased volcanic activity and/or the increased risk of 

eruption; and/or (c) require that the excursion be canceled or postponed when the alert 

levels, volcanic activity and/or risk of eruption increased; (2) cancel or postpone the 

excursion when the alert levels, volcanic activity and/or risk of eruption increased; 

and/or (3) regularly and/or adequately identify the highest safety standards in the 

industry for the activities offered in the subject excursion, verify that the Excursion 

Entity was adhering to such standards, require such standards to be met if/when the 

Excursion Entity was falling below such standards.

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 30 of 46
- 31 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

63. At all times material hereto, RCCL knew of the foregoing conditions causing the subject 

incident and did not correct them, or the conditions existed for a sufficient length of time so that 

RCCL, in the exercise of reasonable care under the circumstances, should have learned of them 

and corrected them. This knowledge was or should have been acquired through: 

a. RCCL’s initial approval process and/or yearly inspections of the Excursion Entity 

and/or the excursion, including, but not limited to, having RCCL’s representative(s) 

take the excursion, conducting site inspections, and/or reviewing or enacting the 

Excursion Entity’s policies and procedures, which did or should have revealed: (a) the 

implications that the Excursion Entity and/or its operations equipment were reasonably 

safe under the circumstances were false based on (1) the excursion taking place in a 

volcano that was active multiple times just a few years before the incident; (2) the 

failure to routinely monitor volcanic alert levels and/or volcanic activity; (3) the failure 

to notify passengers of the increased alert levels, the increased volcanic activity and/or 

the increased risk of eruption; and/or (4) the decision to proceed with the excursion 

despite the increased volcanic alert levels, without adequately notifying passengers of 

the risk entailed; and/or (b) the lack of policies and/or procedures to (1) routinely 

monitor volcanic alert levels and/or volcanic activity and notify RCCL and/or 

passengers of such levels/activity; (2) notify passengers of the increased alert levels, 

the increased volcanic activity and/or the increased risk of eruption; and/or (3) require 

that the excursion be canceled or postponed when the alert levels, volcanic activity 

and/or risk of eruption increased.

b. Prior incidents of eruptions during volcano tours resulting in injuries to tourists, 

including, but not limited to, the 2018 Kilauea eruption that RCCL was aware of, as 

alleged in paragraph 31, which did or should have revealed (a) the implications that the 

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 31 of 46
- 32 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

Excursion Entity and/or its operations equipment were reasonably safe under the 

circumstances were false based on (1) the excursion taking place in a volcano that was 

active multiple times just a few years before the incident; (2) the failure to routinely 

monitor volcanic alert levels and/or volcanic activity; (3) the failure to notify 

passengers of the increased alert levels, the increased volcanic activity and/or the 

increased risk of eruption; and/or (4) the decision to proceed with the excursion despite 

the increased volcanic alert levels, without adequately notifying passengers of the risk 

entailed; and/or (b) the need for adequate policies and/or procedures to (1) routinely 

monitor volcanic alert levels and/or volcanic activity and notify RCCL and/or 

passengers of such levels/activity; (2) notify passengers of the increased alert levels, 

the increased volcanic activity and/or the increased risk of eruption; and/or (3) require 

that the excursion be canceled or postponed when the alert levels, volcanic activity 

and/or risk of eruption increased.

64. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of RCCL, the Plaintiffs were injured 

about Plaintiffs’ body and extremity, suffered physical pain, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of 

life, disability, disfigurement, post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental and/or nervous 

disorders, aggravation of any previously existing conditions therefrom, incurred medical expenses 

in the care and treatment of Plaintiffs’ injuries, suffered physical handicap, lost earnings and lost 

earning capacity, both past and future. The injuries are permanent or continuing in nature and 

Plaintiffs will suffer the losses and impairments in the future. In addition, Plaintiffs lost the benefit 

of Plaintiffs’ vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment for all damages recoverable under the 

law and demand trial by jury.

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 32 of 46
- 33 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

COUNT V - NEGLIGENCE AGAINST THE EXCURSION ENTITY

The Plaintiffs re-allege, adopt, and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 

one (1) through thirty-eight (38) as though alleged originally herein.

65. At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entity owned and/or operated the subject 

excursion.

66. At all times material hereto, it was the duty of the Excursion Entity to provide Plaintiffs

with reasonable care under the circumstances.

67. At all times material hereto, the subject excursion was unreasonably dangerous, operated 

incompetently, and/or operated by persons improperly trained and/or improperly supervised, based 

on (1) the subject excursion was in a volcano that was active multiple times just a few years before 

the incident; (2) the increased volcanic alert levels and/or volcanic activity; (3) the tour guide did 

not notify passengers of the increased alert levels, the increased volcanic activity and/or the 

increased risk of eruption; and/or (4) the Excursion Entity proceeded with the excursion despite 

the increased volcanic alert levels, without adequately notifying passengers of the risk entailed.

68. On or about December 9, 2019, the Excursion Entity and/or its agents, servants, and/or 

employees breached its duty to provide Plaintiffs with reasonable care under the circumstances, 

based on the following acts and/or omissions:

a. Failure to provide a safe excursion; and/or 

b. Failure to adequately inspect and/or monitor the subject excursion so as to ensure that 

it was reasonably safe for passengers; and/or

c. Failure to adequately inspect and/or monitor the subject excursion so as to ensure that

passengers were being adequately informed and/or warned as to the volcanic alert 

levels and/or volcanic activity; and/or

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 33 of 46
- 34 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

d. Failure to routinely inspect and/or monitor the volcanic alert levels and/or volcanic 

activity so as to determine whether it was reasonably safe enough for passengers to 

proceed with the subject excursion; and/or

e. Failing to cancel or postpone the excursion when the alert levels, volcanic activity 

and/or risk of eruption increased; and/or

f. Failure to promulgate and/or enforce adequate policies and/or procedures for the 

Excursion Entity to routinely monitor volcanic alert levels and/or volcanic activity and 

notify RCCL and/or passengers of such levels/activity; and/or

g. Failure to promulgate and/or enforce adequate policies and/or procedures for the 

Excursion Entity to notify passengers of the increased alert levels, the increased 

volcanic activity and/or the increased risk of eruption; and/or

h. Failure to promulgate and/or enforce adequate policies and/or procedures for the 

Excursion Entity to require that the excursion be canceled or postponed when the alert 

levels, volcanic activity and/or risk of eruption increased; and/or

i. Failure to adequately warn and/or communicate to passengers (including the Plaintiffs) 

of the dangers associated with participating in the subject excursion, including (1) the 

excursion taking place in a volcano that was active multiple times just a few years 

before the incident; (2) the increased alert levels, the increased volcanic activity and/or 

the increased risk of eruption; and/or (3) the risk of death or severe injuries; and/or

j. Failure to adequately warn and/or communicate to passengers (including the Plaintiffs) 

that RCCL does not inspect and/or monitor the Excursion Entity, the subject excursion,

the volcanic alert levels, and/or the volcanic activity, despite the subject excursion 

being promoted as “thoroughly reviewed” by RCCL; and/or

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 34 of 46
- 35 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

k. Failure to adequately warn and/or communicate to passengers (including the Plaintiffs) 

that RCCL does not verify that the subject excursion is reasonably safe and/or 

inspected, despite the subject excursion being promoted as “thoroughly reviewed” by 

RCCL; and/or

l. Failure to adequately warn and/or communicate to passengers (including the Plaintiffs) 

that the Excursion Entity is not adhering to highest safety standards in the industry, as 

evident by the hazard and/or incompetence involved with the subject excursion; and/or

m. Failure to adequately warn and/or communicate to passengers (including the Plaintiffs) 

that the Excursion Entity is not subject to jurisdiction in the United States, especially 

when RCCL contractually requires its passengers (including the Plaintiffs) to file suit 

in a specific jurisdiction in the United States for all claims arising from the subject 

cruise (including incidents that occur while participating in shore excursions); and/or

n. Failure to adequately warn and/or communicate to passengers (including the Plaintiffs) 

that the Excursion Entity carries independent insurance from the cruise line that has 

lower limits and more limited coverage than RCCL’s insurance; and/or

o. Failure to adequately warn and/or communicate to passengers (including the Plaintiffs) 

the limits of the Excursion Entity’s insurance; and/or

p. Failure to regularly and/or adequately identify the highest safety standards in the 

industry for the activities offered in the subject excursion, and verify that the Excursion 

Entity is adhering to such standards; and/or

q. Failure to regularly and/or adequately review the safety record of the Excursion Entity

before recommending the subject excursion to passengers and the Plaintiffs; and/or

r. Failure to ensure that properly trained and supervised persons operated the subject 

excursion; and/or

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 35 of 46
- 36 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

s. Having a shore excursion that was not competently operated.

69. The above acts and/or omissions caused and/or contributed to the Plaintiffs being severely 

injured while participating in the subject excursion, as follows:

a. The subject incident would not have occurred but for the failure of the Excursion Entity 

(and/or its agents, servants, and/or employees) to: (1) provide a safe excursion, operated 

competently, by properly trained and supervised persons, as listed in paragraph 

68(a),(e),(r)-(s); (2) adequately inspect and/or monitor, as listed in paragraph 68(b)-(d); 

(3) promulgate and/or enforce the policies and procedures listed in paragraph 68(f)-(h); 

(4) verify that it was adhering to the highest standards review, as listed in paragraph 

68(p); and/or (5) review the excursion’s safety record, as listed in paragraph 68(q).

b. The Plaintiffs would not have purchased tickets for and/or participated in the subject 

excursion had the Excursion Entity (and/or its agents, servants, and/or employees) 

adequately warned and/or communicated the information listed in paragraph 68(i)-(o).

70. At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entity created and/or knew of the foregoing 

conditions causing the subject incident and did not correct them, or the conditions existed for a 

sufficient length of time so that the Excursion Entity, in the exercise of reasonable care under the 

circumstances, should have learned of them and corrected them. This knowledge was or should 

have been acquired through: 

a. The initial approval process and/or yearly inspections of the Excursion Entity and/or 

the excursion, including, but not limited to, taking the excursion, conducting site 

inspections, and/or reviewing or enacting the Excursion Entity’s policies and 

procedures, which did or should have revealed the failure to: (1) provide a safe 

excursion, operated competently, by properly trained and supervised persons, as listed 

in paragraph 68(a),(e),(r)-(s); (2) adequately inspect and/or monitor, as listed in 

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 36 of 46
- 37 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

paragraph 68(b)-(d); (3) promulgate and/or enforce the policies and procedures listed 

in paragraph 68(f)-(h); (4) adequately warn and/or communicate the information listed 

in paragraph 68(i)-(o); (5) verify that it was adhering to the highest standards review, 

as listed in paragraph 68(p); and/or (6) review the excursion’s safety record, as listed 

in paragraph 68(q).

b. Prior incidents involving passengers injured on the Excursion Entity’s excursions that 

have occurred during RCCL cruises and/or that have been reported within the industry, 

which would have revealed the failure to: (1) provide a safe excursion, operated 

competently, by properly trained and supervised persons, as listed in paragraph 

68(a),(e),(r)-(s); (2) adequately inspect and/or monitor, as listed in paragraph 68(b)-(d); 

(3) promulgate and/or enforce the policies and procedures listed in paragraph 68(f)-(h); 

(4) adequately warn and/or communicate the information listed in paragraph 68(i)-(o); 

(5) verify that it was adhering to the highest standards review, as listed in paragraph 

68(p); and/or (6) review the excursion’s safety record, as listed in paragraph 68(q).

71. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Excursion Entity, the Plaintiffs

were injured about Plaintiffs’ body and extremity, suffered physical pain, mental anguish, loss of 

enjoyment of life, disability, disfigurement, post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental and/or 

nervous disorders, aggravation of any previously existing conditions therefrom, incurred medical 

expenses in the care and treatment of Plaintiffs’ injuries, suffered physical handicap, lost earnings 

and lost earning capacity, both past and future. The injuries are permanent or continuing in nature 

and Plaintiffs will suffer the losses and impairments in the future. In addition, Plaintiffs lost the 

benefit of Plaintiffs’ vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment for all damages recoverable under the 

law and demand trial by jury.

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 37 of 46
- 38 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

COUNT VI – NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANTS

BASED ON APPARENT AGENCY OR AGENCY BY ESTOPPEL

The Plaintiffs re-allege, adopt, and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 

one (1) through thirty-eight (38) as though alleged originally herein.

72. At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entity was the apparent agent(s) of RCCL.

73. At all times material hereto, RCCL is estopped to deny that the Excursion Entity was its

agent(s) or employee(s).

74. At all times material hereto, RCCL made manifestations which caused the Plaintiffs to 

believe that the Excursion Entity had authority to act for the benefit of RCCL. These manifestations 

included:

a. RCCL allowed its name to be utilized in connection with the advertising of the 

Excursion Entity; and/or

b. RCCL made all arrangements for the subject excursion without effectively disclosing 

to the Plaintiffs that the subject excursion was being run by another entity (and/or 

entities); and/or 

c. RCCL marketed the subject excursion using its company logo on its website and/or in 

its brochures and/or on its ship without effectively disclosing to the Plaintiffs that the 

subject excursion was being run by another entity (and/or entities); and/or

d. RCCL maintained an excursion desk on its ship whereby it offered, sold, provided 

information to, and answered questions of passengers about the subject excursion 

without effectively disclosing to the Plaintiffs that the subject excursion was being run 

by another entity (and/or entities); and/or

e. Until the point that Plaintiffs actually participated in the subject excursion, the 

Plaintiffs’ exclusive contacts concerning the subject excursion was with RCCL; and/or

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 38 of 46
- 39 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

f. RCCL recommended to Plaintiffs to not engage in excursions, tours or activities that 

are not sold through RCCL as RCCL has no familiarity with other tours or their 

operations; and/or

g. The fee for the excursion was charged to the Plaintiffs, and collected from the Plaintiffs, 

exclusively by RCCL; and/or 

h. Plaintiffsreceived the receipt for the purchase of the subject excursion exclusively from 

RCCL.

75. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on the above, to their detriment, so as to believe that the 

Excursion Entity was the employee and/or agent of RCCL in choosing the subject excursion.

76. It was reasonable to believe that the Excursion Entity was RCCL’s employee and/or agent 

because the Plaintiffs booked, paid for and made all necessary arrangements for the subject 

excursion with RCCL. RCCL’s actions caused Plaintiffs to believe that the Excursion Entity had 

authority to act on RCCL’s behalf. At no time did the Excursion Entity represent to the ship’s 

passengers or the Plaintiffs in particular in a meaningful way that the Excursion Entity was not an 

agent or employee of RCCL.

77. Plaintiffs’ reasonable reliance was detrimental because Plaintiffs would not have booked, 

paid for and/or participated in the subject excursion or incur any injuries had the Plaintiffs known 

that the subject excursion was not operated by RCCL.

78. The foregoing acts of negligence of RCCL and/or the Excursion Entity was a direct and 

proximate cause of the Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages.

79. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs were

injured about Plaintiffs’ body and extremity, suffered physical pain, mental anguish, loss of 

enjoyment of life, disability, disfigurement, post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental and/or 

nervous disorders, aggravation of any previously existing conditions therefrom, incurred medical 

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 39 of 46
- 40 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

expenses in the care and treatment of Plaintiffs’ injuries, suffered physical handicap, lost earnings 

and lost earning capacity, both past and future. The injuries are permanent or continuing in nature 

and Plaintiffs will suffer the losses and impairments in the future. In addition, Plaintiffs lost the 

benefit of Plaintiffs’ vacation, cruise, and transportation costs

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment for all damages recoverable under the 

law and demand trial by jury.

COUNT VII – NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANTS BASED ON 

JOINT VENTURE BETWEEN RCCL AND THE EXCURSION ENTITY

The Plaintiffs re-allege, adopt, and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 

one (1) through thirty-eight (38) as though alleged originally herein.

80. At all times material hereto, RCCL and the Excursion Entity engaged in a joint venture to 

provide excursions to passengers aboard RCCL’s ship(s).

81. At all times material hereto, RCCL and the Excursion Entity entered into an agreement 

where RCCL would sell the subject excursion to its passengers and the Excursion Entity would 

operate the subject excursion.

82. As its part of the joint venture, RCCL arranged for, sponsored, recommended, marketed, 

operated, marketed, sold and/or collected money for the subject excursion, and the money was 

then shared between RCCL and the Excursion Entity. As its part of the joint venture, the Excursion 

Entity provided labor and/or operated the subject excursion.

83. RCCL, on behalf of the joint venture, charged a fee to passengers who utilized the 

excursions. The fee paid by the passengers, including the Plaintiffs, was split between RCCL and 

the Excursion Entity, such that RCCL and the Excursion Entity shared a profit of the money made 

from the shore excursion.

84. At all times material hereto, RCCL and the Excursion Entity had joint and/or shared control 

over aspects of the joint venture. The Excursion Entity had control over the day-to-day workings 

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 40 of 46
- 41 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

of the excursions. RCCL also had control over the day-to-day workings of the excursions in that 

they required the Excursion Entity to exercise reasonable care in the operation of the subject 

excursion. RCCL had control over the arrangements, marketing and sales of the excursion. 

85. At all times material hereto, RCCL and the Excursion Entity shared a common purpose: to 

operate the subject excursion for a profit.

86. At all times material hereto, RCCL and the Excursion Entity had a joint proprietary and/or 

ownership interest in the subject excursion. RCCL had an interest in arranging, sponsoring, 

recommending, advertising, operating, and selling the subject excursion as well as collecting 

money for such excursion, and the Excursion Entity had a proprietary interest in the time and labor 

expended in operating the subject excursion.

87. At all times material hereto, RCCL and the Excursion Entity shared and/or had the right to 

share in the profits of the subject excursion, as RCCL retained a portion of the ticket sales for the 

subject excursion after the tickets were sold, and RCCL paid the Excursion Entity the remaining 

portion of the ticket sales for the subject excursion.

88. At all times material hereto, RCCL and the Excursion Entity shared and/or had a duty to 

share any losses that may have been sustained with the subject excursion, including, for instance, 

when RCCL issued a refund to passengers for the Excursion Entity’s excursion(s), including, but 

not limited to, the subject excursion.

89. RCCL and the Excursion Entity are jointly and severally responsible for each other’s 

negligence as partners of the partnership and/or joint venture.

90. At all times material hereto, RCCL and the Excursion Entity therefore:

a. Had an intention to create a joint venture;

b. Had a joint proprietary interest in the subject matter of the venture;

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 41 of 46
- 42 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

c. Had mutual control and/or joint control over the subject matter of the venture with 

respect to the provision of excursions to passengers aboard the ship;

d. Had a right to share in the profits of the joint venture; and

e. Would share losses which may have been sustained.

91. As joint venturers, RCCL and the Excursion Entity are liable for each other’s negligence. 

As a result, RCCL is liable for the negligent conduct of the Excursion Entity.

92. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, the Plaintiffs were injured 

about Plaintiffs’ body and extremity, suffered physical pain, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of 

life, disability, disfigurement, post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental and/or nervous 

disorders, aggravation of any previously existing conditions therefrom, incurred medical expenses 

in the care and treatment of Plaintiffs’ injuries, suffered physical handicap, lost earnings and lost 

earning capacity, both past and future. The injuries are permanent or continuing in nature and 

Plaintiffs will suffer the losses and impairments in the future. In addition, Plaintiffs lost the benefit 

of Plaintiffs’ vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment for all damages recoverable under the 

law and demand trial by jury.

COUNT VIII – THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY

The Plaintiffs re-allege, adopt, and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 

one (1) through thirty-eight (38) as though alleged originally herein.

93. RCCL and the Excursion Entity entered into a contract to provide the subject excursion for 

passengers aboard RCCL’s ship(s).

94. RCCL and the Excursion Entity intended that the contract primarily and directly benefit 

RCCL’s passengers, including the Plaintiffs.

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 42 of 46
- 43 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

95. The intent of RCCL and the Excursion Entity for the contract to benefit RCCL passengers, 

including the Plaintiffs, was expressed by RCCL and the Excursion Entity. 

96. The intent of RCCL and the Excursion Entity for the contract to benefit RCCL passengers, 

including the Plaintiffs, was demonstrated by the provisions of the contract. These provisions 

include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) the purpose of the agreement explicitly stating 

that it is for the Excursion Entity to provide shore excursions to guests on RCCL’s vessels; 

(b) RCCL having the right to charge its passengers the price that RCCL determines in its sole 

discretion; (c) RCCL having the sole discretion to provide its passengers a full or partial 

reimbursement of the excursion ticket if a passenger is dissatisfied; (d) RCCL requiring that the 

Excursion Entity exercise reasonable care for the passengers’ safety at all times; (e) RCCL

requiring that the Excursion Entity satisfy and continue to satisfy the highest standards of quality 

in the industry; and/or (f) RCCL requiring that the Excursion Entity maintain insurance for any 

and all injuries to passengers.

97. This contract was breached by RCCL and/or the Excursion Entity (and/or their agents, 

servants, joint venturers and/or employees) by failing to offer a reasonably safe excursion that 

satisfied the highest standards of quality in the industry (as required under the contract), based on 

the hazards involved with the subject excursion, including, but not limited to: (a) the excursion 

taking place in a volcano that was active multiple times just a few years before the incident; 

(b) the failure to routinely monitor volcanic alert levels and/or volcanic activity; (c) the failure to 

notify passengers of the increased alert levels, the increased volcanic activity and/or the increased 

risk of eruption; and/or (d) the unsafe policy of proceeding with the excursion despite increased 

volcanic alert levels, without adequately notifying passengers of the risk entailed. The Plaintiffs

would not have been injured but for Defendants failing to offer a reasonably safe excursion that 

satisfied the highest standards of quality in the industry (as required under the contract).

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 43 of 46
- 44 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

98. As a direct and proximate result of the breach(es), the Plaintiffs were injured about 

Plaintiffs’ body and extremity, suffered physical pain, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, 

disability, disfigurement, post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental and/or nervous disorders, 

aggravation of any previously existing conditions therefrom, incurred medical expenses in the care 

and treatment of Plaintiffs’ injuries, suffered physical handicap, lost earnings and lost earning 

capacity, both past and future. The injuries are permanent or continuing in nature and Plaintiffs

will suffer the losses and impairments in the future. In addition, Plaintiffs lost the benefit of 

Plaintiffs’ vacation, cruise, and transportation costs.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment for all damages recoverable under the 

law and demand trial by jury.

COUNT IX – BREACH OF NON-DELEGABLE DUTY AGAINST RCCL

The Plaintiffs re-allege, adopt, and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 

one (1) through thirty-eight (38) as though alleged originally herein.

99. RCCL contractually offered to provide an excursion to Plaintiffs to participate in RCCL’s 

excursion. The Plaintiffs accepted that contractual offer and provided consideration to RCCL by 

purchasing the excursion from RCCL.

100. By promoting, vouching for, contracting for and profiting from the excursion ticket 

contract, RCCL owed Plaintiffs the non-delegable contractual duty to provide them with a 

reasonably safe excursion. See, e.g., Bailey v. Carnival Corp., 369 F. Supp. 3d 1302 (S.D. Fla. 

2019); see also Witover v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 161 F. Supp. 3d 1139 (S.D. Fla. 2016).

101. RCCL breached its non-delegable contractual and/or tort duty to provide a reasonably 

safe excursion by committing one or more of the following acts:

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 44 of 46
- 45 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

a. Failing to select and adequately verify that the Excursion Entity and the subject 

excursion were safe, reliable and reputable, as evident by how unreasonably dangerous 

the subject excursion was; and/or

b. Failing to offer a reasonably safe excursion, as evident by how unreasonably dangerous 

the subject excursion was; and/or

c. Failing to accurately advise Plaintiffs concerning the increased alert levels, the 

increased volcanic activity and/or the increased risk of eruption; and/or

d. Failure to require the Excursion Entity to (1) routinely monitor volcanic alert levels 

and/or volcanic activity and notify RCCL and/or passengers of such levels/activity; 

(2) notify passengers of the increased alert levels, the increased volcanic activity and/or 

the increased risk of eruption; and/or (3) require the excursion be canceled or postponed 

when the alert levels, volcanic activity and/or risk of eruption increased; and/or

e. Failure to adequately warn and communicate to passengers (including the Plaintiffs) 

that the Excursion Entity is not subject to jurisdiction in the United States and the law 

in the United States or Florida, especially when RCCL contractually requires its 

passengers (including the Plaintiffs) to file suit in a specific jurisdiction in the United 

States for all claims arising from the subject cruise (including incidents that occur while 

participating in shore excursions); and/or

f. Failing to make arrangements with the Excursion Entity that would benefit and protect 

passengers and Plaintiffs, such as (i) requiring the Excursion Entity to submit to 

personal jurisdiction in the United States and, specifically, in the same forum that 

RCCL requires Plaintiffs to file lawsuits for all claims arising from the subject cruise; 

and/or (ii) requiring the Excursion Entity to agree to the application of specific United 

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 45 of 46
- 46 -

L I P C O N , M A R G U L I E S , A L S I N A & W I N K L E M A N , P . A .

W W W . L I P C O N . C O M

States and Florida law for all disputes arising from the subject excursion, including 

passengers’ claims against the Excursion Entity.

102. As a result of RCCL’s contractual and/or tortious breach of its non-delegable duty to 

provide a safe excursion, the Plaintiffs were injured about Plaintiffs’ body and extremity, suffered 

physical pain, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, disability, disfigurement, post-traumatic 

stress disorder and other mental and/or nervous disorders, aggravation of any previously existing 

conditions therefrom, incurred medical expenses in the care and treatment of Plaintiffs’ injuries, 

suffered physical handicap, lost earnings and lost earning capacity, both past and future. The 

injuries are permanent or continuing in nature and Plaintiffs will suffer the losses and impairments 

in the future. In addition, Plaintiffs lost the benefit of Plaintiffs’ vacation, cruise, and 

transportation costs.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment for all damages recoverable under the 

law and demand trial by jury.

DATED: June 25, 2020. 

LIPCON, MARGULIES, 

ALSINA & WINKLEMAN, P.A.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1776

2 South Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, Florida 33131

Telephone No.: (305) 373-3016

Facsimile No.: (305) 373-6204

By: /s/ Michael Winkleman

JASON R. MARGULIES

Florida Bar No. 57916

jmargulies@lipcon.com

MICHAEL A. WINKLEMAN

Florida Bar No. 36719

mwinkleman@lipcon.com

JACQUELINE GARCELL

Florida Bar No. 104358

jgarcell@lipcon.com

Case 1:20-cv-22627-FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 46 of 46