$24 Million Verdict for Widower of Pregnant Woman Killed at Fort Lauderdale Hotel Cabana

In March 2012, Alana DeMella was sitting in a poolside cabana at the Riverside Hotel in Fort Lauderdale when a drunk driver plowed through the structure. The driver, Rosa Rivera Kim, had a blood alcohol content three times the legal limit. The cabana sat roughly 15 feet from Sagamore Road. The impact collapsed the structure and killed Alana, who was seven months pregnant, along with her unborn son. Her husband Michael, who was with her, survived with minor injuries.

Kim was convicted criminally and sentenced to 15 years in prison. Michael DeMella then brought a civil wrongful-death suit against both the driver and the hotel's owner, Las Olas Holding Company. The civil case centered on whether the hotel bore responsibility for placing guests in a structure so close to a road it knew carried dangerously fast-moving traffic.

At trial, the plaintiff's legal team presented emails in which the hotel's own general manager had described the street as 'a racetrack' in communications to county commissioners. Evidence showed vehicles regularly exceeded 50 mph on that stretch of road. The team argued the hotel knew the cabana was in a hazardous location but failed to take meaningful protective steps beyond installing what turned out to be an illegal stop sign.

Daniel W. Cotter of The Maher Law Firm served as co-counsel for Michael DeMella alongside Gary M. Farmer Sr., Gary M. Farmer Jr., and Bradley J. Edwards of Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos and Lehrman. In 2015, the Broward County jury returned a total verdict of $24,057,283. The jury assigned 15 percent of fault to the hotel and 85 percent to the driver, placing the hotel's share of the award at approximately $3.6 million.

On appeal, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment against the hotel in 2017. The appellate court granted Las Olas Holding Company a directed verdict, concluding that a vehicle crashing into the cabana was 'unquestionably unforeseeable' as a matter of law and that the hotel had met its duty of care by installing barriers and maintaining building code compliance. The reversal applied only to the hotel's share of liability; the judgment against the driver stood.