Readers React: A Hilton hotel catches fire -- should it pay the guests?

To the editor: I usually agree with David Lazarus, but not with his column shaming Hilton Worldwide for not covering the losses of guests after a hotel fire. (“Hotel burns down, declines to reimburse guests,” Oct. 13)

In the absence of negligence on the hotel’s part, I don’t see any legal or moral obligation on the part of the hotel to pay for a guest’s property lost due to a hotel fire stemming from an act of God. The hotel guest, whether a homeowner or a tenant, likely has a claim under his or her own homeowner’s or renter’s policy that routinely covers personal property outside the residence.

Just because someone suffers an economic loss doesn’t automatically make another party liable.

Based on Lazarus’ flawed logic, I should move in with billionaire Larry Ellison to wait for the next big earthquake so I can hit the jackpot. But I’m not going to do that. I’m going to accept personal responsibility and keep my own insurance in force.

Gordon Kanofsky, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: After reading this article, I was so angry that I emailed Hilton. I once experienced something similar with a different chain; I practically had to bully the corporate offices to get them to make good on their franchisee.

I told Hilton that, with 50 rooms occupied at the time of the fire, if the losses in each room amounted to $5,000, Hilton would have had to pay out $250,000 (tax deductible) to keep this from becoming a potential media nightmare.

I am boycotting Hilton, and I encourage others to do the same. I don’t want to risk being treated this way.

Hilton’s handling of this matter was stupid, cheap, wimpy and just plain disgusting.

David Fritz, Reseda

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion