1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Miami Division

Case No. 

ANA I. ROSQUETE,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD, 

a Liberian Corporation d/b/a 

ROYAL CARIBBEAN INTERNATIONAL, 

and CRUISE SHIP EXCURSIONS, INC.,

a U.S. Virgin Islands Corporation,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, ANA I. ROSQUETE (hereinafter “Rosquete”), by and through the undersigned 

counsel, sues Defendants, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD, a Liberian Corporation d/b/a 

ROYAL CARIBBEAN INTERNATIONAL (hereinafter “Royal Caribbean”), and CRUISE SHIP 

EXCURSIONS, INC., a foreign corporation (hereinafter “Excursions”), and alleges: 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is an action under general maritime and admiralty law, and the laws of Florida 

as applicable, which seeks damages in excess of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest, costs and 

attorney’s fees. 

2. Federal subject matter jurisdiction arises under and is by virtue of diversity of 

citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332, as this is a civil action for damages in excess of the 

required minimal jurisdictional limit of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between 

citizens of different States and/or citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state.

Case 1:20-cv-22910-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 1 of 27
2

3. This action also arises under general maritime law such that the Court has admiralty 

or maritime jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1333. This is an admiralty and/or maritime claim 

within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(h). 

4. Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States who resides in the State of Florida, is over 

the age of eighteen years and is otherwise sui juris. 

5. Defendant Royal Caribbean is a Liberian corporation with its principal place of 

business in Miami-Dade County, Florida, located at 1050 Caribbean Way, Miami, Florida 33132. 

6. Defendant Excursions is an entity organized under the laws of the U.S. Virgin 

Islands with its principal place of business located at Building 3, Upper Havensight, West Indian 

Company Dock, St. Thomas, USVI 00802 and, at all times material hereto, was and is doing 

business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

7. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Excursion owned, operated, managed, 

maintained and/or controlled the subject excursion, “2-Island Snorkeling Safari and Beach 

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

and/or managed by Defendant Royal Caribbean.

8. Defendant Excursion is believed to have entered into an agreement with Defendant 

Royal Caribbean for the protection of Defendant Royal Caribbean’s passengers, whereby 

Defendant Excursion agreed to subject itself to the laws and jurisdiction of the State of Florida, 

consented to personal jurisdiction over itself, and consented to the venue of the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Furthermore, Defendant Excursion is subject to 

the jurisdiction of this Court because they sold the subject excursion ticket through Defendant 

Royal Caribbean, which is operated and/or managed out of the State of Florida, and/or sold on 

Case 1:20-cv-22910-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 2 of 27
3

Royal Caribbean’s website, which is accessible and conducts sales in the Southern District of 

Florida.

9. At all times material hereto, all Defendants, 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. Were engaged in substantial activity within this state; 

c. Operated vessels in the waters of this state; and/or

d. Committed one or more of the acts set forth in §§48.081, 48.181 and/or 48.193, 

Florida Statutes.

10. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 as the Cruise/Cruisetour 

Ticket Contract issued by Defendant Royal Caribbean and attached hereto as Exhibit “A” contains 

a forum-selection clause which provides that the action shall be litigated in and before the United 

States District Court for the Southern District in Miami-Dade County, Florida, U.S.A. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

11. At all times material hereto, Defendant Royal Caribbean was engaged in the 

business of providing to the public, including the Plaintiff, for compensation, vacation cruises 

aboard the vessel, the Symphony of the Seas. 

12. On or about July 17, 2019, Plaintiff was a paying passenger aboard the Symphony 

of the Seas which was in navigable waters.

13. At all times material hereto, excursions from the Symphony of the Seas were 

advertised to passengers and to Plaintiff in Defendant Royal Caribbean’s website and/or other 

promotional materials including, but not limited to, brochures which contained Defendant Royal 

Caribbean’s logo. 

Case 1:20-cv-22910-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 3 of 27
4

14. At all times material hereto, Defendant Royal Caribbean offered passengers aboard 

the Symphony of the Seas and the Plaintiff the opportunity to go on various excursions during the 

subject cruise, including, but not limited to the “2-Island Snorkeling Safari and Beach Getaway” 

excursion. 

15. At all times material hereto, Defendant Royal Caribbean had a shore excursion desk 

aboard the Symphony of the Seas for the purpose of, inter alia, providing Defendant Royal 

Caribbean passengers recommendations regarding shore excursions and charging Defendant 

Royal Caribbean passengers for shore excursions. 

16. At all times material hereto, Defendant Royal Caribbean sold tickets for the “2-

Island Snorkeling Safari and Beach Getaway” excursion to passengers, including Plaintiff, aboard 

the Symphony of the Seas during the subject cruise. 

17. On or about July 17, 2019, as part of Plaintiff’s cruise aboard the Symphony of the 

Seas, Plaintiff participated in the “2-Island Snorkeling Safari and Beach Getaway” excursion in 

St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. This excursion was arranged for, sponsored, recommended, 

operated, marketed and/or sold by Defendant Royal Caribbean as part of the voyage on the subject 

cruise. 

18. On the stated date, as part of the “2-Island Snorkeling Safari and Beach Getaway” 

excursion, Plaintiff and other passengers were transported by the 2007 63’ Cooper Catamaran, the 

Virgin Breeze, for purposes of snorkeling at various locations around St. Thomas. At all times 

material hereto, Plaintiff was a paying customer aboard the Virgin Breeze which was in navigable 

waters. 

19. At all times material hereto, Defendant Royal Caribbean and/or Defendant 

Excursions owned, operated, managed, maintained and/or controlled the vessel, the Virgin Breeze.

Case 1:20-cv-22910-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 4 of 27
5

20. As part of the subject excursion, Plaintiff and other passengers were required to 

board and disembark the Virgin Breeze via ladder located on either side of the Virgin Breeze. On 

the stated date, while Plaintiff was boarding the Virgin Breeze via one of the ladders as part of the 

subject excursion, Plaintiff sustained a serious injury resulting in Plaintiff’s finger being amputated 

and fractured. 

21. As a direct and proximate result of her injuries, Plaintiff was required to undergo, 

inter alia, surgery, hospitalization, physical therapy and other medical treatment. 

22. Defendants knew and/or should have known that the ladders from which Plaintiff 

and other passengers were required to board and disembark the Virgin Breeze as part of the subject 

excursion were dangerous and could result in the injuries such as that sustained by the Plaintiff.

23. Defendants Royal Caribbean and Excursions failed to warn passengers, including 

the Plaintiff, regarding the danger associated with using the ladders on the Virgin Breeze and failed 

to provide any other adequate means for its passengers to board and disembark the Virgin Breeze

during the subject excursion. 

24. At all times material hereto, Defendant Excursion was the agent and/or apparent 

agent of Defendant Royal Caribbean by virtue of the foregoing such that Defendant Royal 

Caribbean is estopped from denying that Defendant Royal Caribbean was the agent for Defendant 

Excursion:

a. Defendant Royal Caribbean made all arrangements for the subject excursion 

without disclosing to Plaintiff that the subject excursion was being run by 

another entity; and/or

Case 1:20-cv-22910-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 5 of 27
6

b. Defendant Royal Caribbean marketed the subject excursion using its company 

logo on its website and/or in its brochures and/or on its ship without disclosing 

to Plaintiff that the subject excursion was being run by another entity; and/or

c. Defendant Royal Caribbean maintained an excursion desk on its ship whereby 

it offered, sold, provided information to, and answered questions of passengers 

about the subject excursion without disclosing to Plaintiff that the subject 

excursion was being run by another entity; and/or

d. Defendant Royal Caribbean recommended its passengers to not engage in 

excursions, tours and/or activities that are not sold through Defendant Royal 

Caribbean; and/or

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

Plaintiff’s exclusive contact concerning the subject excursion was with 

Defendant Royal Caribbean and/or Defendant Royal Caribbean’s onboard 

excursion desk; and/or

f. The fee for the subject excursion was charged to the Plaintiff, and collected 

from the Plaintiff, exclusively by Defendant Royal Caribbean; and/or

g. Plaintiff received a receipt exclusively from Defendant Royal Caribbean for the 

purchase of the subject excursion. 

25. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff relied on the above to her detriment, so as to 

believe that Defendant Excursion was the employee and/or agent of Defendant Royal Caribbean, 

in choosing the subject excursion. At no time did Defendant Royal Caribbean represent to Plaintiff 

in particular, or the ship’s passengers in general, in a meaningful way that Defendant Excursion 

was not an agent and/or employee of Defendant Royal Caribbean. 

Case 1:20-cv-22910-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 6 of 27
7

26. At all times material hereto, Defendant Royal Caribbean was the owner or co-owner 

of the subject excursion. At all times material hereto, Defendant Royal Caribbean was responsible 

for, and liable for, the actions of Defendant Excursions with respect to the said excursion. 

27. In the alternative, at all times material hereto, a partnership and/or joint venture 

existed between Defendants Royal Caribbean and Excursions by virtue of the following, whereby 

Defendants Royal Caribbean and Excursions are jointly and severally responsible for the 

negligence of each other as partners of the partnership and/or joint venture: 

a. Upon information and belief, Defendants Royal Caribbean and Excursions 

entered into an agreement whereby Defendant Royal Caribbean made all 

arrangements for the Plaintiff, on behalf of the partnership with Defendant 

Excursion, for the subject excursion being run by Defendant Excursion; and/or

b. Defendant Royal Caribbean marketed on its website and/or its brochures and/or 

on its ship, on behalf of the partnership with Defendant Excursion, the subject 

excursion; and/or

c. Defendant Royal Caribbean maintained an excursion desk on its ship whereby 

it offered, sold, provided information to, and answered questions or passengers, 

on behalf of the partnership with Defendant Excursion; and/or

d. Defendant Excursion provided the subject excursion boat to be used in the 

subject excursion; and/or

e. Defendant Royal Caribbean determined the amount of money charged for the 

subject excursion being run by Defendant Excursion; and/or

f. Defendant Royal Caribbean collected the amount of money charged for the 

subject excursion being run by Defendant Excursion; and/or

Case 1:20-cv-22910-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 7 of 27
8

g. Defendant Royal Caribbean paid Defendant Excursion a portion of the sales of 

tickets for the subject excursion after the subject excursion tickets were sold; 

and/or

h. Defendant Royal Caribbean shared profits and losses with Defendant Excursion 

for the subject excursion. 

28. At all times material hereto, Defendant Royal Caribbean was a partner in the subject 

excursion.

29. At all times material hereto, Defendant Royal Caribbean operated, managed and/or 

supervised the subject excursion. 

30. At all times material hereto, Defendant Excursion owned and operated the subject 

excursion and was the agent, apparent agent, joint venture, servant, and/or employee of Defendant 

Royal Caribbean and at all times acted within the course and scope of its employment, agency, 

apparent agency, joint venture or service. 

31. At all times material hereto, Defendant Royal Caribbean did not provide any 

restrictions or warnings to its passengers regarding any safety concerns for passengers considering 

the subject excursion. 

32. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff relied on Defendant Royal Caribbean’s 

representations that there were no notable restrictions or warnings regarding health or safety 

concerns for passengers purchasing and participating in the subject shore excursion. 

COUNT I

(Negligence – Defendant Royal Caribbean)

33. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-asserts the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 

32 as though fully set forth herein. 

Case 1:20-cv-22910-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 8 of 27
9

34. At all material times, Defendant Royal Caribbean owed a “duty to exercise 

reasonable care for the safety of its passengers” including the Plaintiff herein. See Hall v. Royal 

Caribbean Cruises, Limited, 888 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (citing Kermarec v. Campagnie 

Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625, 79 S.Ct. 406, 3 L.Ed.2d 550 (1959); The Moses Taylor, 

4 Wall. 411, 71 U.S. 411, 18 L.Ed. 397 (1866); Carlisle v. Ulysses Line Ltd., 475 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 

3d DCA 1985)). 

35. Defendant Royal Caribbean also owed a “duty to exercise reasonable care under 

the circumstances.” See Harnesk v. Carnaval Cruise Lines, Inc., 1992 AMC 1472, 1991 WL 

329584, at *1 (S.D. Fla. 1991). 

36. Defendant Royal Caribbean’s “duty is to warn of dangers known to the carrier in 

places where the passenger is invited to, or may be reasonably expected to visit.” See Carlisle v. 

Ulysses Line Ltd., 475 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). 

37. Further, Defendant Royal Caribbean’s duty extends to transporting its passengers 

to and from shore. See Isham v. Pacific Far East Line, Inc., 476 F.2d 835, 836 (9th Cir. 1973); and 

see, Samuelov v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 870 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).

38. On or about July 17, 2019, Defendant Royal Caribbean and/or its agents, servants, 

joint venturers and/or employees breached its duty of care to Plaintiff in one or more of the 

following ways:

a. By failing to provide a safe excursion; and/or

b. By failing to properly supervise and oversee the excursion marketed, 

advertised, offered and sold to its guests; and/or

Case 1:20-cv-22910-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 9 of 27
10

c. By failing to adequately monitor excursion providers so as to ensure that the 

excursion tours were reasonably safe for cruise passengers including the 

Plaintiff; and/or

d. By failing to adequately warn Plaintiff of the dangers of participating in the 

subject excursion; and/or

e. By failing to adequately monitor excursion providers so as to ensure that the 

operations of excursion tours were reasonably safe for the Plaintiff and other 

cruise passengers; and/or

f. By failing to ensure that properly trained and supervised persons operated the 

subject excursion; and/or

g. By having an excursion that was not competently operated; and/or

h. By failing to provide an excursion with properly trained operators and 

personnel; and/or

i. By failing to cancel the subject excursion in light of the conditions; and/or

j. By failing to promulgate and/or enforce adequate policies and procedures with 

regard to the cancellation of excursions; and/or

k. By failing to require the excursion operator to promulgate and/or enforce 

adequate policies and procedures with regard to the cancellation of shore 

excursions; and/or

l. By failing to ascertain the dangers, restrictions and/or warnings regarding 

health and/or safety concerns to passengers such as the Plaintiff participating in 

the subject excursion; and/or

Case 1:20-cv-22910-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 10 of 27
11

m. By failing to adequately ascertain the level of danger the subject excursion 

posed to passengers such as the Plaintiff.

All of which caused Plaintiff to sustain a serious injury while participating in the subject 

excursion. 

39. At all times material hereto, Defendant Royal Caribbean negligently failed to 

determine the hazards that the excursion posed to Plaintiff, failed to eliminate the hazard and failed 

to properly warn Plaintiff of the hazard. 

40. Defendant Royal Caribbean knew of the foregoing conditions causing Plaintiff’s 

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

Defendant Royal Caribbean, in the exercise of reasonable care under the circumstances, should 

have learned of them and corrected them. 

41. As a result of Defendant Royal Caribbean’s negligence, the Plaintiff suffered severe 

bodily injury and the resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss 

of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization and surgery, expenses for medical 

and nursing care and treatment and loss of earnings. The injuries are permanent or continuing in 

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

the benefit of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, excursion and transportation costs. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ANA I. ROSQUETE, respectfully demands judgment against 

Defendant, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD, a Liberian Corporation d/b/a ROYAL 

CARIBBEAN INTERNATIONAL, for all damages recoverable under general maritime law 

including, but not limited to, pecuniary damages, non-pecuniary damages, pain and suffering, lost 

wages, costs, and any and all other damages which are recoverable.

Case 1:20-cv-22910-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 11 of 27
12

COUNT II

(Negligence – Defendant Excursions)

42. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-asserts the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 

32 as though fully set forth herein. 

43. At all material times, Defendant Excursions owed a “duty to exercise reasonable 

care for the safety of its passengers” including the Plaintiff herein. See Hall v. Royal Caribbean 

Cruises, Limited, 888 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (citing Kermarec v. Campagnie Generale 

Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625, 79 S.Ct. 406, 3 L.Ed.2d 550 (1959); The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 

411, 71 U.S. 411, 18 L.Ed. 397 (1866); Carlisle v. Ulysses Line Ltd., 475 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 

1985)). 

44. Defendant Excursions also owed a “duty to exercise reasonable care under the 

circumstances.” See Harnesk v. Carnaval Cruise Lines, Inc., 1992 AMC 1472, 1991 WL 329584, 

at *1 (S.D. Fla. 1991). 

45. Defendant Excursions’ “duty is to warn of dangers known to the carrier in places 

where the passenger is invited to, or may be reasonably expected to visit.” See Carlisle v. Ulysses 

Line Ltd., 475 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). 

46. Further, Defendant Excursions’ duty extends to transporting its passengers to and 

from shore. See Isham v. Pacific Far East Line, Inc., 476 F.2d 835, 836 (9th Cir. 1973); and see, 

Samuelov v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 870 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).

47. On or about July 17, 2019, Defendant Excursions and/or its agents, servants, joint 

venturers and/or employees breached its duty of care to Plaintiff in one or more of the following 

ways:

a. By failing to provide a safe excursion; and/or

Case 1:20-cv-22910-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 12 of 27
13

b. By failing to properly supervise and oversee the excursion marketed, 

advertised, offered and sold to its guests; and/or

c. By failing to adequately monitor excursions so as to ensure that the excursion 

was reasonably safe for cruise passengers including the Plaintiff; and/or 

d. By failing to adequately warn Plaintiff of the dangers of participating in the 

subject excursion; and/or

e. By failing to ensure that properly trained and supervised persons operated the 

subject excursion; and/or

f. By having an excursion that was not competently operated; and/or

g. By failing to provide an excursion with properly trained operators and 

personnel; and/or

h. By failing to cancel the subject excursion in light of the conditions; and/or

i. By failing to promulgate and/or enforce adequate policies and procedures with 

regard to the cancellation of shore excursions; and/or

j. By failing to provide a safe and reasonably designed ladder for entrance and/or 

exit by passengers of all ages and abilities including the Plaintiff; and/or

k. By failing to provide crew members to assist passengers including the Plaintiff 

on the boat to allow safe entrance and/or exit onto the boat by passengers of all 

ages and abilities; and/or

l. By failing to warn Plaintiff of the potentially dangerous characteristics of the 

ladder and the difficulties the Plaintiff might encounter climbing to and from 

the boat as part of the excursion; and/or

Case 1:20-cv-22910-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 13 of 27
14

m. By failing to provide the Plaintiff and other passengers with safe means of 

embarking onto or disembarking from the boat; and/or

n. By creating a dangerous condition on the boat and allowing the dangerous 

condition to exist which resulted in the accident sustained by the Plaintiff 

herein; and/or

o. By allowing a dangerous condition to exist of which Defendant Excursions had 

actual and/or constructive knowledge which resulted in the accident sustained 

by the Plaintiff herein; and/or

p. By negligently maintaining the boat in an unreasonably dangerous condition

that would allow passengers, including the Plaintiff, to become injured while 

attempting to board the boat as part of the subject excursion; and/or

q. By negligently conducting operations such that passengers, including the 

Plaintiff herein, embark onto or disembark the boat with dangerous ladders as 

part of the subject excursion without assistance. 

All of which caused Plaintiff to sustain a serious injury while participating in the subject 

excursion. 

48. At all times material hereto, Defendant Excursions negligently failed to determine 

the hazards that the excursion posed to Plaintiff, failed to eliminate the hazard and failed to 

properly warn Plaintiff of the hazard. 

49. Defendant Excursions knew of the foregoing conditions causing Plaintiff’s accident 

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

Defendant Excursions, in the exercise of reasonable care under the circumstances, should have 

learned of them and corrected them. 

Case 1:20-cv-22910-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 14 of 27
15

50. As a result of Defendant Excursions’ negligence, the Plaintiff suffered severe 

bodily injury and the resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss 

of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization and surgery, expenses for medical 

and nursing care and treatment and loss of earnings. The injuries are permanent or continuing in 

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

the benefit of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, excursion and transportation costs. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ANA I. ROSQUETE, respectfully demands judgment against 

Defendant, CRUISE SHIP EXCURSIONS, INC., for all damages recoverable under general 

maritime law including, but not limited to, pecuniary damages, non-pecuniary damages, pain and 

suffering, lost wages, costs, and any and all other damages which are recoverable.

COUNT III

(Apparent Agency or Agency by Estoppel Claim – Defendant Royal Caribbean)

51. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-asserts the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 

32 as though fully set forth herein. 

52. At all times material hereto, Defendant Excursions was the apparent agent of 

Defendant Royal Caribbean. 

53. At all times material hereto, Defendant Royal Caribbean is estopped from denying 

that Defendant Excursions was its agent or proxy. 

54. At all times material hereto, Defendant Royal Caribbean made manifestations 

which caused Plaintiff to believe that Defendant Excursions had the authority to act for the benefit

of Defendant Royal Caribbean. These manifestations included: 

a. Defendant Royal Caribbean allowed its name to be utilized in connection with 

the advertising of Defendant Excursions; and/or

Case 1:20-cv-22910-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 15 of 27
16

b. Defendant Royal Caribbean made all arrangements for the subject excursion 

without effectively disclosing to Plaintiff that the subject excursion was being 

run by another entity; and/or

c. Defendant Royal Caribbean 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 Plaintiff that the subject excursion was being run by another entity; 

and/or

d. Defendant Royal Caribbean 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 Plaintiff that the 

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

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

Plaintiff’s exclusive contact concerning the subject excursion was with 

Defendant Royal Caribbean; and/or

f. Defendant Royal Caribbean recommended to Plaintiff not to engage in 

excursions, tours or activities that are not sold through Defendant Royal 

Caribbean as Defendant Royal Caribbean has no familiarity with other tours or 

their operations; and/or

g. Plaintiff received a receipt exclusively from Defendant Royal Caribbean for the 

purchase of the subject excursion; and/or 

h. The receipt received by Plaintiff from Defendant Royal Caribbean for the 

subject excursion did not include any information to inform the Plaintiff that 

Case 1:20-cv-22910-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 16 of 27
17

the excursion she booked was not owned and/or operated by or jointly with 

Defendant Royal Caribbean; and/or

i. The fee for the excursion to be charged to the Plaintiff and collected from the 

Plaintiff, was done exclusively by Defendant Royal Caribbean; and/or

j. Plaintiff purchased her shore excursion ticket through Defendant Royal 

Caribbean and was not given the shore excursion ticket until shortly before the 

excursion with no time to discover that the excursion was not run by Defendant 

Royal Caribbean. 

55. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff reasonably relied on the above, to her

detriment, so as to believe that Defendant Excursions was the employee and/or agent of Defendant 

Royal Caribbean in choosing the subject excursion. Additionally, Defendant Royal Caribbean’s 

actions caused Plaintiff to believe that Defendant Excursions had authority to act on Defendant 

Royal Caribbean’s behalf. 

56. It was reasonable to believe that Defendant Excursions was an employee and/or 

agent of Defendant Royal Caribbean because the Plaintiff booked, paid for and made all necessary 

arrangements for the subject excursion with Defendant Royal Caribbean. At no time did Defendant 

Excursions represent to Plaintiff in particular or the ship’s passengers in a meaningful way that 

Defendant Excursions was not an agent or employee of Defendant Royal Caribbean. 

57. Plaintiff’s reasonable reliance was detrimental because she would not have booked, 

paid for and/or participated in the subject excursion or incurred any injuries had Plaintiff known 

that the subject excursion was not operated by Defendant Royal Caribbean. 

58. The foregoing acts of negligence of Defendant Royal Caribbean and/or Defendant 

Excursions were a direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. 

Case 1:20-cv-22910-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 17 of 27
18

59. As a result of Defendants’ negligence, the Plaintiff suffered severe bodily injury 

and the resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of capacity for 

the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization and surgery, expenses for medical and nursing 

care and treatment and loss of earnings. The injuries are permanent or continuing in nature and 

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

of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, excursion and transportation costs. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ANA I. ROSQUETE, respectfully demands judgment against 

Defendant, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD, a Liberian Corporation d/b/a ROYAL 

CARIBBEAN INTERNATIONAL, for all damages recoverable under general maritime law 

including, but not limited to, pecuniary damages, non-pecuniary damages, pain and suffering, lost 

wages, costs, and any and all other damages which are recoverable.

COUNT IV

(Joint Venture Between Royal Caribbean and Excursions –

Defendant Royal Caribbean and Defendant Excursions)

60. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-asserts the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 

32 as though fully set forth herein. 

61. At all times material hereto, Defendant Royal Caribbean and Defendant Excursions 

engaged in a joint venture to provide excursions to passengers aboard Defendant Royal 

Caribbean’s ship(s). 

62. At all times material hereto, Defendant Royal Caribbean and Defendant Excursions 

entered into an agreement whereby Defendant Royal Caribbean would sell the subject shore 

excursion to its passengers and Defendant Excursions would operate the subject shore excursion.

63. As part of the joint venture, Defendant Royal Caribbean arranged for, sponsored, 

recommended, marketed, operated, sold and/or collected money for the subject excursion and the 

Case 1:20-cv-22910-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 18 of 27
19

money was then shared between Defendant Royal Caribbean and Defendant Excursions. As part 

of the joint venture, Defendant Excursions provided labor and/or operated the subject excursion. 

64. Defendant Royal Caribbean, on behalf of the joint venture, charged a fee to 

passengers who utilized the excursions. The fee was then split between Defendant Royal 

Caribbean and Defendant Excursions. 

65. At all times material hereto, Defendant Royal Caribbean and Defendant Excursions 

had joint and/or shared control over aspects of the joint venture. Defendant Excursions had control 

over the day-to-day workings of the excursions. Defendant Royal Caribbean also had control over 

the day-to-day workings of the excursions in that Defendant Royal Caribbean required Defendant 

Excursions to exercise reasonable care in the operation of the subject excursion. Defendant Royal 

Caribbean had control over the arrangements, marketing and sales of the excursion. Further 

Defendant Royal Caribbean had control over whether or not dissatisfied passengers could obtain 

refunds for the subject excursion. 

66. At all times material hereto, Defendants Royal Caribbean and Excursions shared a 

common purpose: to operate the shore excursion for a profit.

67. At all times material hereto, Defendants Royal Caribbean and Excursions had a 

joint proprietary and/or ownership interest in the subject excursion. Defendant Royal Caribbean 

had an interest in arranging, sponsoring, recommending, advertising, operating, and selling the 

subject excursion as well as collecting money for such excursion, and Defendant Excursions had 

a proprietary interest in the time and labor expended in operating the subject excursion.

68. At all times material hereto, Defendants Royal Caribbean and Excursions shared 

any losses sustained from the joint venture. 

Case 1:20-cv-22910-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 19 of 27
20

69. Defendants Royal Caribbean and Excursions are jointly and severally responsible 

for the negligence of each other as partners of the partnership and/or joint venture. 

70. At all times material hereto, Defendant Royal Caribbean and Defendant Excursions 

therefore: 

a. Had an intention to create a joint venture; and/or

b. Had a joint proprietary interest in the subject matter of the venture; and/or

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; and/or

d. Had a right to share in the profits of the joint venture; and/or

e. Would share in the losses which may have been sustained.

71. As joint venturers, Defendants Royal Caribbean and Excursions are liable for each 

other’s negligence. As a result, Defendant Royal Caribbean is liable for the negligent conduct of 

Defendant Excursions. 

72. As a result of Defendant Royal Caribbean’s negligence, the Plaintiff suffered severe 

bodily injury and the resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss 

of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization and surgery, expenses for medical 

and nursing care and treatment and loss of earnings. The injuries are permanent or continuing in 

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

the benefit of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, excursion and transportation costs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ANA I. ROSQUETE, respectfully demands judgment against 

Defendants, CRUISE SHIP EXCURSIONS, INC. and ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD, a 

Liberian Corporation d/b/a ROYAL CARIBBEAN INTERNATIONAL, for all damages 

recoverable under general maritime law including, but not limited to, pecuniary damages, nonCase 1:20-cv-22910-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 20 of 27
21

pecuniary damages, pain and suffering, lost wages, costs, and any and all other damages which are 

recoverable.

COUNT V

(Third Party Beneficiary – Defendant Royal Caribbean and Defendant Excursions)

73. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-asserts the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 

32 as though fully set forth herein. 

74. Defendant Royal Caribbean entered into an agreement to provide excursions for 

passengers on board Defendant Royal Caribbean’s ship(s).

75. The agreement between the parties clearly manifested the intent of the contracting 

parties that the contract primarily and directly benefit the third-party Plaintiff by requiring that 

Defendant Excursions exercise reasonable care in the operation of the subject excursion. 

76. The agreement between the parties clearly manifested the intent of the contracting 

parties that the contract primarily and directly benefit the third-party Plaintiff by requiring that 

Defendant Excursions maintain insurance and/or exercise reasonable care in the operation of the 

subject excursion. 

77. The agreement was breached by both Defendant Royal Caribbean and Defendant 

Excursions for acts and/or omissions that include, but are not limited to, the following: 

a. By failing to provide a safe excursion; and/or

b. By failing to properly supervise and oversee the excursion marketed, 

advertised, offered and sold to its guests; and/or

c. By failing to adequately monitor excursions so as to ensure that the excursion 

was reasonably safe for cruise passengers including the Plaintiff; and/or 

d. By failing to adequately warn Plaintiff of the dangers of participating in the 

subject excursion; and/or

Case 1:20-cv-22910-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 21 of 27
22

e. By failing to ensure that properly trained and supervised persons operated the 

subject excursion; and/or

f. By having an excursion that was not competently operated; and/or

g. By failing to provide an excursion with properly trained operators and 

personnel; and/or

h. By failing to cancel the subject excursion in light of the conditions; and/or

i. By failing to promulgate and/or enforce adequate policies and procedures with 

regard to the cancellation of shore excursions; and/or

j. By failing to provide a safe and reasonably designed ladder for entrance and/or 

exit by passengers of all ages and abilities including the Plaintiff; and/or

k. By failing to provide crew members to assist passengers including the Plaintiff 

on the boat to allow safe entrance and/or exit onto the boat by passengers of all 

ages and abilities; and/or

l. By failing to warn Plaintiff of the potentially dangerous characteristics of the 

ladder and the difficulties the Plaintiff might encounter climbing to and from 

the boat as part of the excursion; and/or

m. By failing to provide the Plaintiff and other passengers with a safe means of 

embarking onto or disembarking from the boat; and/or

n. By creating a dangerous condition on the boat and allowing the dangerous 

condition to exist which resulted in the accident sustained by the Plaintiff 

herein; and/or

Case 1:20-cv-22910-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 22 of 27
23

o. By allowing a dangerous condition to exist of which Defendant Excursions had 

actual and/or constructive knowledge which resulted in the accident sustained 

by the Plaintiff herein; and/or

p. By negligently maintaining the boat in an unreasonably dangerous condition

that would allow passengers, including the Plaintiff, to become injured while 

attempting to board the boat as part of the subject excursion; and/or

q. By negligently conducting operations such that passengers, including the 

Plaintiff herein, embark onto or disembark the boat with dangerous ladders as 

part of the subject excursion without assistance. 

All of which caused Plaintiff to sustain a serious injury while participating in the subject 

excursion. 

78. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, the Plaintiff suffered 

severe bodily injury and the resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, 

loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization and surgery, expenses for 

medical and nursing care and treatment and loss of earnings. The injuries are permanent or 

continuing in nature and Plaintiff will suffer the losses and impairments in the future. In addition, 

Plaintiff lost the benefit of Plaintiff’s vacation, cruise, excursion and transportation costs. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ANA I. ROSQUETE, respectfully demands judgment against 

Defendants, CRUISE SHIP EXCURSIONS, INC. and ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD, a 

Liberian Corporation d/b/a ROYAL CARIBBEAN INTERNATIONAL, for all damages 

recoverable under general maritime law including, but not limited to, pecuniary damages, nonpecuniary damages, pain and suffering, lost wages, costs, and any and all other damages which are 

recoverable.

Case 1:20-cv-22910-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 23 of 27
24

COUNT VI

(Negligent Misrepresentation – Defendant Royal Caribbean)

79. Plaintiff re-alleges and re-asserts the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 

32 as though fully set forth herein. 

80. At all times material hereto, Defendant Royal Caribbean had a pecuniary interest 

in coordinating, marketing, advertising, vouching for, providing expert advice about and directly 

selling the subject excursion. 

81. At all times material hereto, Defendant Royal Caribbean owed its passengers, 

including the Plaintiff, a duty to exercise reasonable care in obtaining and accurately 

communicating any information relating to shore excursions it was coordinating, marketing, 

advertising, vouching for, providing expert advice about and directly selling. 

82. At all times material hereto, Defendant Royal Caribbean made misrepresentations 

of material fact relating to its sponsored excursions, including the subject excursion. 

83. Those misrepresentations of material fact were made in its literature, on its website 

and on board about the safety and security of the excursions it was offering to its passengers. 

84. Defendant Royal Caribbean made further material misrepresentations to Plaintiff 

when she consulted with crewmembers at the onboard excursions desk regarding participating in 

the subject excursion. 

85. At all times material hereto, Defendant Royal Caribbean knew, or in the exercise 

of reasonable care should have known, that the misrepresentations of material fact, as set forth 

herein, were untrue and misleading.

86. Defendant Royal Caribbean made these misrepresentations of material fact with the 

purpose and intent that ship passengers, including the Plaintiff, would rely upon them in choosing 

and purchasing the excursions it coordinated, marketed and directly sold. 

Case 1:20-cv-22910-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 24 of 27
25

87. Defendant Royal Caribbean’s misrepresentations of material fact relating to the 

subject excursion influenced the Plaintiff to purchase the subject excursion. Plaintiff would not 

have purchased the subject excursion but for the said misrepresentations of material fact as to the 

safety, reliability, licensing and insurance of the subject excursion, including expert advice and 

assurances that the Plaintiff would be able to safely participate in the subject excursion. 

88. The Plaintiff reasonably relied on the above misrepresentations of material fact, to 

her detriment, and purchased and participated in the subject excursion in which she was injured. 

This reliance was justifiable and reasonable. 

89. At all material times, Defendant Royal Caribbean and/or its agents, servants, 

partners and/or employees breached its duty to provide the Plaintiff with reasonable care under the 

circumstances and was negligent and careless by committing the following acts and/or omissions 

including, but not limited to: 

a. Supplying false and misleading information relating to the shore excursion 

offered and sold by Defendant Royal Caribbean and Defendant Excursions to 

the Plaintiff;

b. Supplying false and misleading information relating to the safety, reliability, 

licensing and insurance relating to the shore excursion offered and sold by 

Defendant Royal Caribbean and Defendant Excursions to the Plaintiff; and

c. Failing to fulfill its promises and make good its representations on which it 

knew passengers, including the Plaintiff, would rely upon, along with promises 

and representations made in its literature, online, onboard the ship and at the 

shore excursion desk onboard the ship. 

Case 1:20-cv-22910-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 25 of 27
26

90. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned carelessness and negligence

by Defendant Royal Caribbean, the Plaintiff suffered severe bodily injury and the resulting pain 

and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, 

expense of hospitalization and surgery, expenses for medical and nursing care and treatment and 

loss of earnings. The injuries are permanent or continuing in nature and Plaintiff will suffer the 

losses and impairments in the future. In addition, Plaintiff lost the benefit of Plaintiff’s vacation, 

cruise, excursion and transportation costs. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ANA I. ROSQUETE, respectfully demands judgment against 

Defendant, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD, a Liberian Corporation d/b/a ROYAL 

CARIBBEAN INTERNATIONAL, for all damages recoverable under the law including, but not 

limited to, pecuniary damages, non-pecuniary damages, pain and suffering, lost wages, costs, and 

any and all other damages which are recoverable.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all issues and claims so triable. 

Respectfully submitted, this 14th day of July 2020. 

Case 1:20-cv-22910-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 26 of 27
27

/s/ Miguel Armenteros

Miguel Armenteros, Esq. 

Fla. Bar No. 14929

John W. Annesser, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 98233

Megan Conkey Gonzalez, Esq.

Fla. Bar No. 1002944

miguel@aa-firm.com

service@aa-firm.com

mconkey@aa-firm.com

jannesser@aa-firm.com

lconley@aa-firm.com

ANNESSER ARMENTEROS, PLLC

2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd, Suite 625

Coral Gables, FL 33134

(786) 600-7446 Telephone

(786) 607-3022 Facsimile

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:20-cv-22910-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 27 of 27