Hiam v. Homeaway.com, Inc.

887 F.3d 542
CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit
DecidedApril 12, 2018
Docket17-1898P
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 887 F.3d 542 (Hiam v. Homeaway.com, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hiam v. Homeaway.com, Inc., 887 F.3d 542 (1st Cir. 2018).

Opinion

KAYATTA, Circuit Judge.

Duped into parting with thousands of dollars to reserve a vacation rental property *544 in Belize that apparently did not exist, plaintiff Peter Hiam sued the owner of the website on which he found the ersatz tropical villa, claiming that the website's guarantee misled him. The district court granted summary judgment to the website's owner, HomeAway.com, Inc. ("HomeAway"). On appeal, Hiam argues that the district court incorrectly applied Massachusetts consumer protection law. Finding no error in the judgment, we affirm.

I.

Since we are reviewing an order granting summary judgment to HomeAway, we recite the facts in the light most favorable to Hiam, the nonmoving party. Walsh v. TelTech Sys., Inc. , 821 F.3d 155 , 157-58 (1st Cir. 2016). Hiam enlisted the help of his adult son, Christopher, to plan a family vacation for the end of 2014. In April 2014, Christopher (on behalf of his father) checked for possible opportunities on VRBO.com, a website owned and operated by HomeAway. The parties agree that VRBO.com (short for "vacation rentals by owner") is a website-based business that allows property owners to advertise their vacation rentals to the public. VRBO.com acts like a searchable online bulletin board; it allows property owners to list their properties, but HomeAway does not itself own or manage any properties, nor does it make itself a party to any contracts between property owners and renters.

After browsing VRBO.com's offerings, Christopher identified a promising option purportedly located in Placencia, Belize. The "Jewels of Belize" estate advertised itself as a beachfront property with room for fourteen people, a private chef, transportation around Belize, and other amenities. Communicating at first through the VRBO website and then directly by email with a purported representative from the estate, Hiam and his son decided to book the property for a one-week period at the end of 2014 into early 2015. The total cost for the rental was $46,565, which Hiam sent to the purported proprietors in two equal installments paid in April and October of 2014. Silence then ensued, and Hiam shortly thereafter realized he had been taken. The Jewels of Belize, it appears, did not even exist.

In December of 2014, Hiam directed his son to contact HomeAway for help. Two months later, HomeAway customer service informed the Hiams that HomeAway removed the listing for the property from the VRBO site "because [HomeAway was] uncertain of the availability of the property" and because no response had been received from the owner. Nonetheless, HomeAway told the Hiams that it had concluded that the property was real and legitimate, and offered them no further assistance. By this point in time, HomeAway had received customer service inquiries from Brooke Hutchens and two other unnamed individuals, each of whom claimed that the Jewels of Belize had similarly defrauded them of thousands of dollars. And previously, in August 2014, other individuals had written in to alert HomeAway that the listing was "a totally bogus scam" and depicted a property located on a Caribbean island.

At the time, HomeAway maintained a limited refund policy called the "Basic Rental Guarantee" (the "Guarantee"). We attach a copy of the Guarantee as an appendix to this opinion. The Guarantee offered a maximum $1000 refund to customers who fell victim to "Internet Fraud," as determined and defined by HomeAway, but only when customers satisfied a series of conditions and requirements. To qualify, the customer needed to have been a "Registered Traveler" within the meaning of the Guarantee's terms, have paid for the rental through a covered payment method *545 (excluding wire transfer services like Western Union), have been denied a refund from the payment provider and the property owner, and have reported the alleged fraud to HomeAway within just seven business days of the first event giving rise to the refund request. Additionally, the $1000 refund was only payable if HomeAway determined, in its "reasonable discretion," that the complained-of listing constituted "Internet Fraud," meaning it was "fictitious or illegitimate" because the property did not exist or because it was advertised with the intent of defrauding travelers.

Hiam does not seek the $1000 refund offered by the Guarantee. Rather, he claims that the Guarantee caused him to lose $46,565 by misleading him into believing that HomeAway made reasonable efforts to keep fraudulent listings off its site. And because it seems that HomeAway does nothing to check out offerings before posting them, Hiam argues that HomeAway is liable for common law fraud and for engaging in unfair or deceptive trade practices under Massachusetts' Chapter 93A. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, § 2(a) ("Chapter 93A"). The district court concluded as a matter of law that the Guarantee was not deceptive or fraudulent in the manner alleged, and disposed of the three counts in Hiam's complaint that hinge on accepting his construction of the Guarantee as a deceptive representation. 1 Hiam v. HomeAway.com, Inc. , 267 F.Supp.3d 338 , 352 (D. Mass. 2017). Hiam appeals this ruling. 2

II.

A.

Hiam's arguments on appeal train principally on the use of the word "guarantee" in the title of the "Basic Rental Guarantee." The pivotal question, one we consider de novo, is whether under Massachusetts law we should construe the use of the word "guarantee" as a representation or warranty by HomeAway to its users that some degree of pre-screening or verification of listings takes place.

Hiam argues that the answer is yes, but this argument fails in the starting blocks because there is no language at all in the Guarantee that makes any such representation or warranty. The document simply establishes a process for obtaining a refund of up to $1000, subject to various conditions. The document also references a separate program in which, for a fee, HomeAway offers the ability to participate in a broader refund plan that covers more risks and pays up to $10,000. The only mention at all of any screening whatsoever by HomeAway takes the form of a condition to payment; that is, HomeAway will not pay a refund claim unless, among other things, the "listing is subsequently determined to be, in HomeAway's reasonable discretion, fictitious or illegitimate." In other words, when a qualified user timely makes a claim for a limited refund, HomeAway at that time checks out the listing and pays the specified refund if it determines in its reasonable discretion that the offering is illegitimate.

*546

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Roland v. Letgo, Inc.
D. Colorado, 2022
Teatotaller, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 2020
LimoLiner, Inc. v. Dattco, Inc.
919 F.3d 86 (First Circuit, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
887 F.3d 542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hiam-v-homeawaycom-inc-ca1-2018.