Jane Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd, and Cruise Ship Excursions, Inc. – Part 2

Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A

January 03, 2013

Jane Doe v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd, and Cruise Ship Excursions, Inc. – Part 2

Complaint

When passengers are injured on a cruise, it is imperative that they contact an experienced maritime attorney for legal help. This is true even if the injury takes place during a cruise, but while the passenger is ashore. Maritime law may still apply to claims arising out of shoreside activities and hiring an experienced maritime attorneylike those at Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A. is critical to ensuring the best possible outcome in the case. In this complaint, a cruise ship passenger was injured in St. Thomas when the shore excursion vehicle she was riding in lost control and veered off the road.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
IN ADMIRALTY
CASE NO.___________________
JANE DOE,
Plaintiff,

v.

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD.,
CRUISE SHIP EXCURSIONS, INC., and
XYZ CORPORATION(S).,
Defendants.

COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby sues Defendants and alleges as follows:

JURISDICTIONAL AND PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff, JANE DOE, is a citizen Canada.

2.Defendant, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., is a Liberian corporation with its principal place of business in Florida.

3.Defendant, CRUISE SHIP EXCURSIONS, INC., is believed to be an entity organized under the laws of the U.S. Virgin Islands.

4.Defendant, XYZ CORPORATION(S), is included to represent the owner(s) and/or operator(s) of the subject excursion, insofar as such entity has a different name than the named Defendants herein. Pursuant to Plaintiff’s preliminary investigation, CRUISE SHIP EXCURSIONS, INC. is believed to have owned and/or operated the subject excursion. XYZ CORPORATION(S) is (are) included in the event that discovery reveals any other entities are involved. XYZ CORPORATION(S) is (are) also used in a plural form. In the event that discovery reveals that additional entities, other than the named Defendants herein, contributed to the ownership, operation, and/or management of the subject excursion, the legal names of the entities will be substituted for XYZ CORPORATION(S).

5.This is a case of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, as hereinafter more fully appears. This is an admiralty or maritime claim within the meaning of Rule 9(h).

6.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;
d.Committed one or more of the acts stated in Florida Statutes, §§ 48.081, 48.181 and/or 48.193;
e.The acts of Defendants set out in this Complaint occurred in whole or in part in this county and/or state.
f.Defendant, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD, engaged in the business of providing to the public and to the Plaintiff in particular, for compensation, vacation cruises aboard the vessel, the Serenade of the Seas, as well as shore excursions.

All Defendants are subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts of this State.

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

At all times material hereto, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. owned, operated, managed, maintained and/or controlled the vessel, the Serenade of the Seas.

At all times material hereto, Defendants, CRUISE SHIP EXCURSIONS, INC. and/or XYZ CORPORATION(S) (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Excursion Entities” in a manner so as to retain each Defendant’s separate and individual liability in the event said Defendants are severed) owned and/or operated the subject excursion, “The Best of St. Thomas & Shopping”, which was offered, arranged for, sponsored, recommended, marketed, sold, co-operated and/or managed by ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD.

The Excursion Entities are believed to have entered into a contract with ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. for the protection of ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD.’s passengers, whereby the Excursion Entities agreed to subject themselves to the laws and jurisdiction of the State of Florida, consented to personal jurisdiction over themselves, and consented to the venue of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Excursion Entities are believed to have also agreed to indemnify ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. for the claims made in this Complaint within the meaning of Florida Statute § 48.193(d). Furthermore, the Excursion Entities are subject to the jurisdiction of this Court because they sell shore excursion tickets through ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD.’s website which is administered in Florida.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

On or about January 27, 2012, Plaintiff was a paying passenger aboard the Serenade of the Seas which was in navigable waters.

At all times material hereto, excursions from the Serenade of the Seas were advertised to passengers and the Plaintiff on ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD.’s website and through ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD.’s promotional material, including, but not limited to, brochures which contained ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD.’s logo.

At all times material hereto, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. offered passengers aboard the Serenade of the Seas and the Plaintiff the opportunity to go on various shore excursions during the subject cruise, including, but not limited to, the subject excursion, “The Best of St. Thomas & Shopping”.

At all times material hereto, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. had a shore excursion desk aboard the Serenade of the Seas for the purpose of, inter alia, providing ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. passengers recommendations regarding shore excursions and charging ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. passengers for shore excursions.

At all times material hereto, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. sold tickets for The Best of St. Thomas & Shopping Tour to passengers aboard the Serenade of the Seas, including the Plaintiff, before and during the subject cruise. The sale and purchase of this ticket constituted a maritime contract.

At all times material hereto, all arrangements for the subject shore excursion were made by ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. by and through a ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. employee using a ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. e-mail account.

At all times material hereto, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. did not provide any information to Plaintiff with respect to the name, address, owner and/or operator of The Best of St. Thomas & Shopping Tour. Nor was there any reasonable way for Plaintiff to discover this information prior to going on the subject shore excursion.

On or about January 27, 2012, as part of Plaintiff’s cruise aboard the Serenade of the Seas, Plaintiff participated in The Best of St. Thomas & Shopping Tour in St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. This excursion was arranged for, sponsored, recommended, operated, marketed, and/or sold by ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. as part of the voyage on the subject cruise.

The Best of St. Thomas & Shopping Tour consisted of a drive around St. Thomas in to various points of interest and vista’s for tourists.

Cruise ship passengers, including the Plaintiff, were driven around St. Thomas in a modified truck, the bed of which had been replaced by an open air passenger compartment.

On or about January 27, 2012, as part of the subject excursion, Plaintiff was riding in the excursion vehicle. While transiting from one point of the tour to another, the driver of the shore excursion vehicle (an employee and/or agent of the Defendants) lost control of the vehicle, veered off the road and crashed. As a result of this incident, Plaintiff suffered severe and permanent personal injuries.

23.At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entities were the agent(s) and/or apparent agent(s) of ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. by virtue of the following, such that ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. is estopped from denying that the Excursion Entities were agents of ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD.:
a.ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. made all arrangements for the subject excursion without disclosing to Plaintiff that the subject excursion was being run by another entity (and/or entities); and/or
b.ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. 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 entities); and/or
c.ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. 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 entities); and/or
d.ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. recommended its passengers to not engage in excursions, tours and/or activities that are not sold through ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD.; and/or
e.Passengers on ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD.’s ships cannot purchase the subject shore excursion except by doing so through ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD.
f.Until the point that Plaintiff actually participated in the subject excursion, the Plaintiff’s exclusive contact concerning the subject excursion was with ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. and/or ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD.’s onboard excursion desk and/or ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD’s online travel planning personnel; and/or
g.The fee for the subject excursion was charged to the Plaintiff, and collected from the Plaintiff, exclusively by ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD.; and/or
h.Plaintiff received a receipt exclusively from ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. for the purchase of the subject excursion.

At all times material hereto, Plaintiff relied on the above, to her detriment, so as to believe that the Excursion Entities were the employee(s) and/or agent(s) of ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., in choosing the subject shore excursion. At no time did ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. represent to Plaintiff in particular, or the ship’s passengers in general, in a meaningful way that the Excursion Entities were not agent(s) and/or employee(s) of ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD..

At all times material hereto, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. was the owner or co-owner of the subject excursion. At all times material hereto, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. was responsible for, and liable for, the actions of the Excursion Entities with respect to the subject excursion.

26.In the alternative, at all times material hereto, a partnership and/or joint venture existed between the Excursion Entities by virtue of the following, whereby ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. and the Excursion Entities are jointly and severally responsible for the negligence of each other as partners of the partnership and/or joint venture:
a.ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. and the Excursion Entities entered into an agreement whereby: ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. made all arrangements for the Plaintiff, on behalf of the partnership with the Excursion Entities, for the subject excursion being run by the Excursion Entities; and/or
b.ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. marketed on ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD.’s website and/or in its brochures and/or on its ship, on behalf of the partnership with the Excursion Entities, the subject excursion being run by the Excursion Entities; and/or
c.ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. maintained an excursion desk on its ship whereby it offered, sold, provided information to, and answered questions of passengers, on behalf of the partnership with the Excursion Entities, about the subject excursion being run by the Excursion Entities; and/or
d.The Excursion Entities provided the subject excursion vehicle to be used in the excursion; and/or
e.ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. determined the amount of money charged for the subject excursion being run by the Excursion Entities; and/or
f.ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. collected the amount of money charged for the subject excursion being run by the Excursion Entities; and/or
g.ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. paid the Excursion Entities a portion of the sales of tickets for the subject excursion after the subject excursion tickets were sold; and/or
h.ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. shared profits and losses with the Excursion Entities for the subject excursion; and/or
i.ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. worked out an exclusive agreement regarding the sale of tickets for the subject shore excursion.

At all times material hereto, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. was an agent for the Excursion Entities in the United States and in Miami, FL specifically.

At all times material hereto, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. was a partner in the subject excursion.

At all times material hereto, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. operated and/or supervised the subject excursion.

At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entities owned and operated the subject excursion. The Excursion Entities were involved in providing the subject excursion to Plaintiff. At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entities were the agent(s), apparent agent(s), joint venturer(s), servant(s), and/or employee(s) of ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. and at all times acted within the course and scope of their agency, apparent agency, joint venture, service and/or employment.

COUNT I – NEGLIGENCE AGAINST ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD.

Plaintiffs re-allege, adopt, and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs one (1) through thirty (30) as though alleged originally herein.

It was the duty of ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. to provide Plaintiff with reasonable care under the circumstances.

On or about January 27, 2012, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. and/or its agents, servants, joint venturers and/or employees breached its duty to provide Plaintiff with reasonable care under the circumstances.

Plaintiff was injured due to the fault and/or negligence of ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. and/or its agents, servants, joint venturers and/or employees for acts and/or omissions that include, but are not limited to, the following:
a.Failure to provide a reasonably safe excursion; and/or
b.Failure to properly supervise and oversee the excursion marketed, advertised, offered and sold to its guests; and/or
c.Failure to adequately inspect, both initially and continually, and/or routinely monitor excursion providers so as to ensure that the subject excursion was reasonably safe for cruise passengers and the Plaintiff; and/or
d.Failure to adequately inspect and/or routinely monitor the subject excursion so as to ensure that the vehicle used on the subject excursion was reasonably safe for Plaintiff and cruise passengers; and/or
e.Failure to adequately inspect, maintain, and/or clear the vehicle used in the subject excursion of objects so as to ensure that it was reasonably safe for Plaintiff and cruise ship passengers; and/or
f.Retaining the Excursion Entities to provide the subject shore excursion without properly ensuring the safety of the excursion providers and their vehicles; and/or
g.Utilizing a shore excursion vehicle that was not reasonably safe for various reasons including a lack of seatbelts which allowed Plaintiff to be thrown forward and injured and/or doors; and/or
h.Failure to adequately warn the Plaintiff of the danger posed by the subject vehicle (such as a lack of seatbelts and/or doors); and/or
i.Failure to require that the Excursion Entities adequately warn the Plaintiff of the danger posed by vehicle used on the excursion; and/or
j.Utilizing a driver not properly qualified to operate the subject vehicle; and/or
k.Utilizing an unsafe driver to operate the subject vehicle on the excursion; and/or
l.Utilizing a driver to operate the subject vehicle that did not have proper licenses; and/or
m.Utilizing a driver to operate the subject vehicle despite that driver having a driving record that put the Defendants on notice that the driver was not a reasonably safe driver and/or
n.Failure to promulgate, enforce and/or comply with adequate policies and procedures to ensure that participants of the subject shore excursion are warned about the danger posed by the vehicle; and/or
o.Failure to require that the Excursion Entities promulgate, enforce and/or comply with policies and procedures to ensure that participants of the subject shore excursion are warned about the danger posed by the vehicle; and/or
p.Failure to promulgate, enforce and/or comply with adequate policies and procedures to ensure that the vehicle used for the subject shore excursion was reasonably safe for cruise ship passengers; and/or
q.Failure to require that the Excursion Entities promulgate, enforce and/or comply with policies and procedures to ensure that the vehicle used for the subject shore excursion was reasonably safe for cruise ship passengers; and/or
r.Failure to promulgate, enforce, and/or comply with rules, regulations, policies, procedures and practices to ensure that all operators of the shore excursion vehicles operated those vehicles reasonably safely and were reasonably competent to operate those vehicles; and/or
s.Failure to require that the Excursion Entities promulgate, enforce and/or comply with rules, regulations, policies and practices concerning the safety of individuals riding in the vehicle; and/or
t.Failure to adequately warn Plaintiffs of the dangers of participating in the subject excursion; and/or
u.Failure to advise the Plaintiff and other cruise ship passengers that ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. does not inspect and/or maintain the vehicle; and/or
v.Failure to advise the Plaintiff and other cruise ship passengers that ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. does not verify that the vehicle used for the subject shore excursion is reasonably safe, inspected, and/or maintained; and/or
w.Failure to ensure that properly trained and supervised persons operated the subject excursion; and/or
x.Retaining a shore excursion provider to provide the subject tour that was not reasonably safe and/or competently operated.

All of which caused the Plaintiff to suffer severe and permanent injuries when the excursion vehicle Plaintiff was riding in lost control and veered off the road.

At all times material hereto, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. had exclusive custody and control of the vessel Serenade of the Seas.

At all times material hereto, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. negligently failed to determine the hazards that the excursion posed to Plaintiff, failed to eliminate the hazards, failed to modify the hazards and failed to properly warn Plaintiff of the hazards. In addition, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. violated the International Safety Management Code and failed to have a proper, adequate and safe Safety Management System Manual. All of the above caused the Plaintiff to be injured.

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. knew of the foregoing conditions causing Plaintiff’s accident and did not correct them, or the conditions existed for a sufficient length of time so that ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., in the exercise of reasonable care under the circumstances, should have learned of them and corrected them.

As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., the Plaintiff was injured about Plaintiff’s body and extremities, suffered physical pain, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, disability, disfigurement, mental and/or nervous disorders, aggravation of any previously existing conditions therefrom, incurred medical expenses in the care and treatment of Plaintiff’s injuries, suffered physical handicap, lost earnings and lost earning capacity both past and future. 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, and transportation costs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for all damages recoverable under the law and requests trial by jury.

COUNT II – NEGLIGENCE AGAINST THE EXCURSION ENTITIES

Plaintiffs re-allege, adopt, and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs one (1) through thirty (30) as though alleged originally herein.

At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entities owned and/or operated the subject excursion.

It was the duty of the Excursion Entities to provide Plaintiff with reasonable care under the circumstances.

On or about January 27, 2012, the Excursion Entities and/or their agents, servants, joint venturers and/or employees breached their duty to provide Plaintiffs with reasonable care under the circumstances.

41.Plaintiff was injured due to the fault and/or negligence of the Excursion Entities and/or their agents, servants, joint venturers and/or employees for acts and/or omissions that include, but are not limited to, the following:
a.Failure to provide a reasonably safe excursion; and/or
b.Failure to properly supervise and oversee the excursion marketed, advertised, offered and sold to its guests; and/or
c.Failure to adequately inspect and/or routinely monitor excursion providers so as to ensure that the subject excursion was reasonably safe for cruise passengers and the Plaintiff; and/or
d.Failure to adequately inspect and/or routinely monitor the subject excursion so as to ensure that the vehicle used in the subject excursion was reasonably safe for Plaintiff and cruise passengers; and/or
e.Failure to adequately inspect, maintain, and/or clear the vehicle used in the subject excursion of objects so as to ensure that it was reasonably safe for Plaintiff and cruise ship passengers; and/or
f.Failure to provide an excursion that utilized reasonably safe vehicles that were both initially and then routinely and adequately inspected and maintained; and/or
g.Utilizing a shore excursion vehicle that was not reasonably safe for various reasons including a lack of seatbelts and/or doors, which allowed Plaintiff to be thrown forward and injured; and/or
h.Failure to adequately warn the Plaintiff of the danger posed by the subject vehicle (such as a lack of seatbelts and/or doors); and/or
i.nbsp; Utilizing a driver not properly qualified to operate the subject vehicle; and/or
j.Utilizing a driver that was not reasonably safe to operate the subject vehicle on the excursion; and/or
k.Utilizing a driver to operate the subject vehicle that did not have proper licenses; and/or
l.Utilizing a driver to operate the subject vehicle despite that driver having a driving record that put the Defendants on notice that the driver was not a reasonably safe driver and/or
m.Failure to promulgate, enforce and/or comply with adequate policies and procedures to ensure that participants of the subject shore excursion are warned about the danger posed by the vehicle; and/or
n.Failure to promulgate, enforce and/or comply with adequate policies and procedures to ensure that the vehicle used for the subject shore excursion was reasonably safe for cruise ship passengers; and/or
o.Failure to promulgate, enforce, and/or comply with rules, regulations, policies, procedures and practices to ensure that all operators of the shore excursion vehicles operated those vehicles reasonably safely and were reasonably competent to operate those vehicles; and/or
p.Failure to adequately warn Plaintiff of the dangers of participating in the subject excursion; and/or
q.Failure to advise the Plaintiff and other cruise ship passengers that ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. does not inspect and/or maintain the vehicle used in the subject shore excursion; and/or
r.Failure to advise the Plaintiff and other cruise ship passengers that ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. does not verify that the equipment used for the subject shore excursion (including the vehicle) is reasonably safe, inspected, and/or maintained; and/or
s.Failure to ensure that properly trained and supervised persons operated the subject excursion; and/or
t.Having a shore excursion that was not competently operated.

All of which caused the Plaintiff to suffer severe and permanent injuries when the excursion vehicle Plaintiff was riding in lost control and veered off the road.

At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entities had exclusive custody and control of the subject excursion.

The Excursion Entities knew of the foregoing conditions causing Plaintiff’s accident and did not correct them, or the conditions existed for a sufficient length of time so that the Excursion Entities, in the exercise of reasonable care under the circumstances, should have learned of them and corrected them.

As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Excursion Entities, the Plaintiff were injured about Plaintiff’s body and extremities, suffered physical pain, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, disability, disfigurement, mental and/or nervous disorders, aggravation of any previously existing conditions therefrom, incurred medical expenses in the care and treatment of Plaintiff’s injuries, suffered physical handicap, lost earnings and lost earning capacity both past and future. 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, and transportation costs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for all damages recoverable under the law and requests trial by jury.

COUNT III – APPARENT AGENCY OR AGENCY BY ESTOPPEL CLAIM AGAINST ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD.

Plaintiffs re-allege, adopt, and incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs one (1) through thirty (30) as though alleged originally herein.

At all times material hereto, the Excursion Entities were the apparent agent(s) of ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD..

At all times material hereto, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. is estopped to deny that the Excursion Entities were their agent(s) or employee(s).

47.At all times material hereto, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. made manifestations which caused Plaintiff to believe that the Excursion Entities had authority to act for the benefit of ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. These manifestations included:
a.ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. allowed its name to be utilized in connection with the advertising of the Excursion Entities; and/or
b.ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. made all arrangements for the subject excursion without effectively disclosing to Plaintiff that the subject excursion was being run by another entity (and/or entities); and/or
c.ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. marketed the subject excursion using its company logo on its website and/or in its brochures and/or on its ship (via port lectures, cabin television, and print articles) without effectively disclosing to Plaintiff that the subject excursion was being run by another entity (and/or entities); and/or