“My riverboat vacation turned into a nightmare”

Gennaro Ottomanelli and his wife were left left high and dry when his riverboat cruise was canceled at the last minute. His AAA travel agent offered two choices: Either cancel his vacation or go on the substitute bus tour. He decided to stay home, hoping to get a refund.

He didn’t.

My riverboat vacation turned into a nightmare. Although I purchased travel insurance at the company recommended by AAA, the travel insurance company advised me that I was not eligible for a refund since the travel insurance did not cover a cancellation by the ship’s operator.

Neither AAA, the travel insurance company or the ship’s company would take responsibility for the $2,860 airfare payment that I lost because of the late cancellation.

My multiple efforts to obtain a refund from AAA were ineffective, despite numerous attempts and contacts with various agencies.

Too bad the Ottomanellis didn’t review the terms of their insurance before they bought it. But even if they had, would they have known to ask about the cancellation policy? Probably not. Instead, they relied on the recommendation of their travel agent, who assured them they’d be protected if their cruise was canceled.

And believe me, folks, this last-minute rivers-to-road switch isn’t the first one I’ve encountered.

I asked AAA to take another look at Ottomanelli’s case. A few days later, it responded:

AAA’s philosophy is one of extraordinary service and we believe that we have worked sincerely, caringly and diligently with the Ottomanelli’s.

The low river level, which prevented the ship from sailing on the date the Ottomanelli’s were scheduled, was extremely disappointing. The trip was to be a first class two week adventure and we recognize the planning and excitement which precede a trip of this magnitude.

We also share the couple’s concerns over the late cancellation decision and notice given by the cruise company. As a result, we investigated that decision with the cruise line and found that the situation was highly unusual. The forecast in the days leading up to the cruise called for rain, thus the cruise line had every reason to believe that the river would be at an acceptable level and the ship would depart as scheduled.

The late cancellation, while we find challenging, was a result of Mother Nature, a force over which none of us have control. While we were not at fault in this situation, we have work tirelessly on behalf of the Ottomanellis and have now obtained a 100% refund of all their expended funds.

We believe this to be above and beyond reasonable under the circumstances.

Nice work, AAA.

(Photo: joiseyshowaa/Flickr Creative Commons)

  • SirWired

    I think I would not have given them a full refund. Sometimes when you travel, the unexpected happens and you have to adapt. While of course they were entitled to a refund for the cruise itself, they should have re-scheduled their vacation (yes, resulting in change fees) or taken an alternate vacation (and not necessarily the suggested one.)

    Trip insurance is a wonderful thing, but it does not cover everything. The insurance policies I have read have been rather clear about what is and is not covered, and all this is spelled out in fairly readable English. The TG policy I normally use is quite explicit about not covering trips canceled by the tour operator. If a consumer does not want to adapt in the case of the unexpected, Cancel for Any Reason riders are available from most trip insurance companies (although they do not provide a 100% refund.) These riders are expensive, but if such a rider is important to you, you should purchase one.

    It was very nice of AAA to provide a full refund, but this was truly above and beyond, and I would not have looked negatively upon AAA, the cruise line, or the insurance company if no refund was provided.

    Moral of the story: before canceling a trip, actually read the trip insurance policy to determine if a refund is likely.

  • Steve

    While SirWired is absolutely correct about what the travel insurance covered and why this couple wasn’t legally entitled to a full refund, I still think that it’s ridiculous how many exclusions there are with travel insurance. As he mentioned, even a ‘cancel for any reason’ rider won’t enable you to get a full refund. And again, this isn’t my opinion on how travel insurance actually works but how it *should* work: I don’t think cancellation by the tour operator is something that should be excluded. It’s hardly a frivolous reason to want a refund. You wanted to buy X, and now they’re saying they can’t give it to you, but they can only give you Y. How is it fair not to offer a full refund, since if you wanted Y you would presumably have bought it in the first place?

    It’s not like this couple simply changed their minds and wanted to cancel a trip that they could have taken. They booked a specific trip and through no fault of their own, that specific trip was unavailable. Why shouldn’t they be due a full refund, ethically speaking? I can’t think of any other business transaction that works this way. If I order a product from a business and after accepting my money, they realize they can’t provide it – say, the manufacturer stopped making it, it was recalled, whatever – they can’t just say “well, we’ll give you this sort of similar product, but we won’t refund your money.”

  • barbie45

    I believe it was largely the fault of the AAA travel agent. She should have gone over the terms of the policy. She just wanted to keep her commission. This is the third time you have had to intervene for an OP with AAA. Their road service is quite expensive considering my insurance agent gives me basically the same road side service at.twelve dollars a year. I also blame the river cruise operator for not allowing them to reschedule or perhaps take another cruise on their line. I hope AAA goes bankrupt.

  • PauletteB

    There’s no way that substituting a bus tour for what was touted as a first-class riverboat cruise could be considered a fair and reasonable exchange. Ugh! I understand that bus tours are popular with certain groups, but the idea of getting on a bus for anything other than short, intra-city transportation gives me hives.

    I’ve had both good and bad experiences with AAA travel agents. Unfortunately, it seems the really good TAs don’t stay with them very long. Even though legally above and beyond, I’m glad AAA came through on this, even though it took a bit of prodding from Chris.

  • Kevin M

    @Paulette: As I read this, the problem wasn’t a refund on the cruise; that was cancelled and they presumably got a refund on that portion of their trip from the cruise operator. So I don’t think anyone was arguing that the bus tour was the equivalent of the cruise and not refunding that money.

    What the people with the problem wanted was for their travel insurance to cover the airfare they paid for necessary to reach the cruise’s starting point – which is why the insurance was even invoked. I’m with Steve on this one; while travel insurance companies may specifically disclaim the right to a refund if the attraction on the other end of your flight is cancelled, that surely has to be one of the principal reasons people cancel trips – and coverage for that ought to be available at a reasonable cost.

  • http://rploehn@usa.net Bob Ploehn

    Once more another reason not to waste money on travel insurance. Even though you can read coverages and exceptions, you have no idea of the frequency/likelihood of it ever happening. Some things are like a meteorite falling on roof above your top-floor hotel room. Just how likely are those exclusions?

    Not being in the travel business, a purchaser cannot wisely make these decisions based on experience. This is why the the states must regulate this “travel insurance” and mandate coverages for common unforeseen events which will result in the financial loss by the travelers. Only insurance meeting minimum requirements (like auto and home insurances) would be allowed to be sold in states. The insurance commissioners would approve or deny carriers.

    As for this particular claim, AAA should have fought tooth-and-nail for a full refund from the cruise line. Why? Any cruise company which schedules a cruise based on a weather forecast, putting literally $100,000′s of customer’s money at risk, must bear the brunt of such an unwise decision.

    So just how much would you bet on a weather forecast? $1,000, $10,000, $100,000 or more? Dumb management decision and they should pay for it. It was very well a foreseen problem well in advance so the travelers could conveniently rearrange their itinerary.

  • sue

    no, SirWired, the moral of this story is that travel insurance is a useless fraud.

  • SirWired

    @Steve: I think you missed that the tour operator did not book the airfare, so when the tour was canceled, the tour operator refunded all the money they had. Certainly if the tour price included airfare, they should have been refunded that amount by the tour company. Since the consumer was working with two separate businesses, each is not responsible for cancellations by the other. (Although insurance does generally cover your tour if your airline cancels on you for weather and you end up missing the trip.) The agent isn’t responsible either; they are just a booking agent, not a provider of travel.

    As far as the trip insurance goes: The insurance is what it is. The exclusions are not sneakily buried in the fine print. The policies are not that long to read, and are not covered in incomprehensible leagalese. More generous policies cost more money. You can argue that the policies *should* include anything out of control of the consumer and provide full refunds, but I’m not sure how many consumers would be willing to pay for such a policy. And where do you draw the line for “out of control”? When you schedule a river cruise, you run the risk of the river being too low. If you want to avoid such a problem, book a land tour. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and in the case of most policies, the line is drawn on not refunding the whole vacation when one provider cancels.

    If you want to mostly avoid the exclusions, then you usually have the opportunity to pay to do so. Why do “Cancel for Any Reason” riders not pay out 100%? Because the amount they would have to charge for such a rider would be more expensive than any policyholder would be willing to pay. The consumer needs some “skin in the game” so they don’t cancel for entirely frivolous reasons.

    @Barbie45: I agree that the agent should have explained the policy better. (Although we don’t necessarily know they didn’t.) But it can also be argued that the OP should have read the policy when the received it in the mail. But I can’t blame the tour operator. They provided a full refund! If the OP chose to do so, they most certainly could have taken that money and rescheduled or booked another line at any time.

  • SirWired

    @Sue: Travel insurance is not a “worthless fraud.” I’ve filed a claim for each of my last two vacations. One was for a complete cancellation, the other was for weather-induced problems getting home. Both claims were paid fairly promptly, and in full. I received no denials, no requests for further documentation, and no problem with obscure policy exclusions.

    @Bob: I’m all for standard policy forms for Travel Insurance. It wouldn’t necessarily include any more coverage, but it sure would make shopping for it a lot easier.

    But as other posters have pointed out, they DID receive a full refund from the cruise line without hassle. The issue was a refund for the airfare, which the cruise line has absolutely nothing to do with.

    ******
    If it were my vacation, I would have simply taken another tour (either the bus tour, or booked something else.) It’s not as if there is nothing to do in Europe other than river cruises. I don’t see why the insurance company should pay when the overall destination is still perfectly fine. (Insurance DOES pay if, say, your destination is demolished by a hurricane.)

  • Arizona Road Warrior

    There are good travel insurance policies out there.

    We have booked two tours (2003 and 2005) with AAA. The first tour, the travel insurance was included for ‘free’ but basically it was worthless so we purchased a travel insurance policy on our own. The second tour, the travel insurance was $ 79 but if you read what it covers and etc. it was incomplete. We declined this coverage and purchase a travel insurance policy on our own. Both times, the travel insurance policy was from the tour operator. It is my guess that the Ottomanellis purchased a policy that was offered by the tour operator based upon our experiences with tours from AAA.

    Rule # 1 in buying travel insurance is never buy it from the travel provider (i.e. airline, cruise line, tour operator, etc.) because the policy was written to benefit them not the traveler. Rule 2 in buying travel insurance is never buy it from a travel agent that isn’t licensed to sell insurance. Rule 3 is to check with the insurance commissioner of the state where the insurance company is domiciled to see if the product is registered as an insurance product as well as checking with your state insurance commissioner to see if the product is licensed and registered in your state. Rule 4 is to read the policy once you received so that you can cancel it within 10 days if you find something that you don’t like and etc.

  • Roberto

    Over the years, I have never purchased travel insurance, extended warranties, or any other upsells that they try to nail you with. These products are riddled with exclusions, and represent pure profit to the seller. Instead, I take the cost of the policy, plan, etc., and put it in a “[Stuff] Happens” fund–held as a CD ladder.

    Whenever anything goes wrong with a trip, appliance, or gadget, I politely ask the provider to “fix” the problem, which sometimes yields more success than other times. Whatever doesn’t get fixed gets paid for out of [Stuff] Happens when a CD matures.

    I currently have over $10,000 sitting in [Stuff] Happens. The “policy” covers when [stuff] gets [fouled] up, and has no onerous exclusions.

    People who are equipped with sufficient self-discipline to self-insure can make out very well, indeed.

  • Shannah

    Had it been me, I would have chosen option C: use the airfare to go to the river, then used the refund from the riverboat company to rent a car. If I was interested enough in the area to go on a riverboat tour, why not drive? Sure, it’s not the same, and it would be disappointing, but at least I would have had a nice vacation. I would have declined the bus tour, too, but with my own car, I probably would have seen more sights.

  • El Cee

    “…we have work tirelessly on behalf of the Ottomanellis and have now obtained a 100% refund of all their expended funds. We believe this to be above and beyond reasonable under the circumstances.” AAA’s the agent, that’s their job. They took their client’s money, they should get it back. I’m hard pressed to believe that AAA doesn’t charge a fee for their service or get a commission but just work out of the goodness of their hearts. Now they want a medal for doing what they get paid to do–take care of their clients. Yes, I agree with you, “Nice work, AAA.” It’s too bad that all this above and beyond only happened after media, i.e. Chris Knight-in-Shining-Armour Elliott, got involved…Okay, I’ll go take a happy pill, but I’m not changing my mind!

  • Tere

    I find AAA’s response to be completely beside the point. The complaint isn’t really about WHY the tour was cancelled, it was about how useless the “insurance” ended up being. AAA’s great pains to discuss the weather seem like misdirection to me – they recommended the crap insurance, and making their reply all about the low water levels is a poor attempt at a response.

  • John Royse

    Good work but this is an exception to the oft repeated advice to rely on a travel agent.

  • welltraveled123

    I am astonished that when the CRUISE OPERATOR cancelled, there wasn’t an immediate refund! And what in the heck is the good of travel insurance if it doesn’t cover this type of situation???

    While I am glad at the resolution, I find AAA’s response condescending and self-serving. THEY should have worked tirelessly for the refund from the start and the insurance they sell should cover this circumstance (it’s time to find a new travel insurance company for sure). One relys on the extra service provided by a travel agency for just these circumstances.

    As a long-time AAA member (40+ years), I find this whole story appalling and disappointing.

  • noah

    I don’t understand. If I reserve a hotel room, but the hotel then doesn’t have a room available to me, I don’t have to pay for the room. That’s true even if the room isn’t available because the hotel fell down in a hurricane. It’s not about travel insurance–the hotel will not and cannot charge me for a product that it does not provide. How is this any different if your room is on a boat?

  • Steve

    “I think you missed that the tour operator did not book the airfare, so when the tour was canceled, the tour operator refunded all the money they had.”

    Point taken. I don’t blame the tour operator here, but my opinion about travel insurance still stands. Now, not knowing what the couple was offered or how well they researched it, maybe it’s possible that for a few dollars more they could have bought insurance to cover this type of scenario, but they went for the cheapo option–if so, their mistake. Still, I disagree that the cancellation of a two-week river cruise is a frivolous reason to cancel a trip. Clearly their primary purpose in making the trip is to take the cruise. Frivolous to me would be wanting to get a full refund just because they changed their minds, or if there was a question of the destination not being 100% as desirable as they’d planned. (Let’s say the water levels were such that the boat could sail, but the scenery was less attractive than in typical years).

    “It’s not as if there is nothing to do in Europe other than river cruises. I don’t see why the insurance company should pay when the overall destination is still perfectly fine. (Insurance DOES pay if, say, your destination is demolished by a hurricane.)”

    True, there are certainly other options for touring Europe. Those may or may not be valid options for this couple, without knowing more about their situation. Maybe they picked a riverboat cruise because they do not drive, or because they have health problems that would make a bus tour difficult or impossible. Without more information, it’s hard to say whether or not the alternatives are reasonable for them.

  • Ed

    This incident seems to be what is typical of travel insurance from what I’ve read here and on other sites. While I can see the validity of needing travel insurance, I am loathe to purchase any because there isn’t any standard in the travel insurance industry. What one company offers as standard is a rider from another company. The consumer has no basis from which to identify their purchase value when it comes to travel insurance. If the travel insurance wants more business, then they need to standardize and identify clearly to the purchaser what is and what is not covered. If this happens, then I think more people will take advantage of travel insurance. As it is, it’s a crap-shoot and the consumer is never made aware of what is covered unless they read the document fully…and who has that kind of time when they are planning the vacation of a lifetime?

  • Mike

    posts like Roberto’s make me smile. But I don’t think Roberto will be smiling if he slips on a gelato someone dropped, breaks a leg, and needs hospitalization and a $40K medical evacuation back to the US. His $10K “fund” will hardly cover that… You buy travel insurance to guard against catastrophic costs. If you can afford the trip, then you could afford to lose that money; you may not be very happy about it, but you’re not ruined financially. You can make an argument that the $3K in airfare should have been covered, but that’s peanuts compared to the real bills you could run up with a medical issue.

  • Roberto

    Why I would need a medevac for a broken leg in Italy is a mystery to me, but many health insurance plans, including mine, cover overseas emergencies.

    Regarding non-emergency care, I think you’ll find that overseas care is dirt cheap. Examples:

    1. Bacterial infection from water in Thailand which caused me severe digestive-system distress. Cost to treat: approximately $2.
    2. Sinus infection in Belgium that caused my wife severe congestion and pain. Cost to treat: $0.
    3. Random digestive infection in Hungary. Cost to treat: approximately $5.
    4. Heat rash in Belize. Cost to treat: approximately $5.

    These are off the top of my head. And these unplanned expenditures did not result in any type of financial hardship on my family. In fact, I did not even tap my [Stuff] Happens fund to cover these.

  • Carver

    @Sirewired

    True, there are other things to do in Europe, but it is a bit disengenious. We don’t have enough information. People often take destination vacations where there is a specific goal in mind. Its hardly the same vacation if you have to scamble to change at the last minute.

  • barbie45

    Arizona, you are a very savy business and pleasure traveler. You are correct in stating that you you should never purchase your insurance with your travel agent. Even Chris makes that point. AAA is trading on in being a monopoly in road assistance. Now there are many more options at a lower cost that do the same thing. By the way my fiance and I are anticipating our vacation to your beautiful state this summer.

  • Arizona Road Warrior

    @ SirWired – “If it were my vacation, I would have simply taken another tour (either the bus tour, or booked something else.) It’s not as if there is nothing to do in Europe other than river cruises.”
    - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - — – - – - – - – - -
    I agree that there are several things to do in Europe. If they want to travel by water, they could have taken an ‘ocean’ cruise that will take them to the ports throughout Europe but these ‘ocean’ crusies doesn’t get you inland or inside of a country. However, I agree with Carver that we don’t know their travel objectives\goals\etc.

    One advantage that a river cruise offers over a land tour is that you don’t have to pack and unpack your luggage every day. We took a 21-day land tour of Europe and my wife didn’t like that the luggage had to be out in the hallway by 6:00 AM.

  • Arizona Road Warrior

    If one does a quick search on the Internet, one will discover that river cruises can be cancelled due to low waters. A professional travel agent would have known this and would have made his\her client aware to set the expectation that the cruise could be cancelled. Furthermore, a professional travel agent would have made sure that the travel insurance will cover ALL costs of the trip not the cruise that was purchased.

    Lastly, a professional travel agent would have found what would have happened if the cruise was cancelled for low water after being on the river for a few days. This has happened (http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/viking-river-cruises-c292709.html) and it make sense to know upfront what will take place to see if that is acceptable to you before buying your river cruise package.

  • Jim_J

    I am generaly against expanding the role of government, but since the federal and state governments are already regulating insurance, why not add travel insurance to the mix. We need a uniform set of standards for policies, we need to make certain that the travel insurers are financially stable, and we need to weed out the crooks who refuse to pay legitimate claims.

  • SirWired

    To be blunt: $hit happens. Yes, if you wanted to take a river cruise, it would most decidedly be inconvenient to be told you now cannot take one. I know I’d be disappointed myself.

    However, base travel insurance policies are designed to prevent vacation catastrophe, not disappointment or inconvenience.

    Destination leveled by an earthquake? Covered.
    Can’t make your flight because the airport is snowed in? Covered.
    Airline bankruptcy? Covered.
    Mom dies two days before you leave? Covered.
    Break your leg a week before your trek across Nepal? Covered.
    Volcano eruption cancels your flight? Covered.
    Summoned for Jury Duty during your vacation? Covered.
    Crisis at work, and your Boss tells you to stay home, or don’t bother coming back? Covered.

    Having to choose a different mode of transport and lodging on your European vacation, which can otherwise continue as planned? Not Covered.

  • Joe Farrell

    Roberto – the ‘cost to treat’ was your cost- not the cost to treat. In nations with nationalized health care, like Belgium, the other natives and taxpayers subsidized your ‘free’ care. NOTHING is free or low cost. It costs the same to educate a doctor in Belize or Belgium as it does here in the US – in fact – since it costs money to educate and equip a doc, there will be no docs if it costs money but no one is paying. Are people that dense that they think its free overseas?

  • Carver

    @Sir wired

    Yes $hit happens. That’s why you may elect to buy insurance. It’s very disengenious to characterize this as merely a change in transportation. That implies that as long as you reached your destination it’s fine. But in this case, the “transportation” itself was the trip. Presumably, the OP wouldn’t have booked the vacation has it been a land safari. As other’s have noted, its a very different vacation.

  • Joe Farrell

    I disagree Sir Wired – if you buy travel insurance to go on a River Boat vacation and you cannot go on a River Boat vacation for whatever reason – it should be covered. High water, low water, vessel damaged, canal closed, government shuts river, company out of business – ALL of those PREVENT you from going on a River Boat vacation. If you do not go on a River Boat your cancellation should be covered. If the REASON you bough the vacay is no longer available – then you should be able to get a refund.

  • SirWired

    But where do you draw the line? If you decided that the whole point of your vacation was to bask on the beach, do you get to cancel (and receive a full refund from the insurance company) if the weather is going to be rainy all week? If you decided that the big highlight of your week-long vacation to Paris is going to be a trip up the Eiffel tower, and they close the elevator for repairs, do you get to cancel?

    Who decides what the “reason” for your vacation is? What stops you from making up some pretext so you can cancel for a most definitely uncovered reason, like simply changing your mind. (i.e. The “reason” you were taking a trip is because you wanted to ride in a 737-800, and the airline changed you into a 757. or: You wanted to celebrate [insert occassion here] at [insert defunct restaurant you found on Google here], and it went under.)

    In this case, the actual destination (the cities being visited by the boat) are still there and you still get to see them. But yes, the mode of transport, lodging, and schedule are going to be different.

    It is perfectly reasonable for the insurance company to draw the line and decide that the “point” of your vacation is getting to your destination, which is intact and viable. (Many (if not all) policies also cover financial default of the tour operator, since you won’t be getting a refund for that kind of cancellation.)

    If you want to draw the line wherever you wish, buy a Cancel for any Reason rider. If you want the insurance company to draw the line for you, then don’t.

  • Joe

    Too true that deciding anybody’s true intent is almost impossible. (And best of luck writing it into an insurance contract.) However, the letter says the cruise was canceled at the “last minute.” Sure, the destination cities were still there, but realistically how were these people supposed to come up with a decent itinerary at the 11th hour? They might have waited years for this trip and to essentially force them to settle (thus wasting their money) or eat the airfare doesn’t seem at all fair. And taking “last minute” to the extreme, you could have a cancelation occur while you were on the plane which would completely leave you out in the cold. That can’t be unheard of so insurance should make allowances for that.

  • SirWired

    Joe, in this case, the cruise company also offered an alternate (bus-based) vacation, so the OP would not have had to arrange anything. Of course, not all providers would be so accommodating, but the OP here would have been fine.

    But you are right… yes, the vacation could have been canceled in flight. Many travel insurance companies (I don’t know about everybody) also include the services of a full-service travel agency and “Concierge” service which can handle things like creating a vacation for you at the last second. Hotels, restaurants, ground transportation, theater tickets, local attractions, local events, the works… With a service like that, and the help of a guidebook, (and maybe the services of a quality on-site hotel concierge) you should be good to go.

    These services can be called collect from abroad, and they have no additional cost beyond that of the services they book on your behalf. If nothing else, they could get you into an airport hotel where you could then procure a guidebook and develop a plan B on the fly (and possibly book with the help of the insurance co’s agency.)

    Again, the insurance company has to draw the line somewhere, and they have universally chosen to draw the line at your flights getting you to your destination city on-time. If you can improvise (and sometimes improvised vacations are the best kind) great! The insurance company can at least lend a hand. If you don’t want to improvise, then pay for a rider that will let you cancel.

  • Mike

    I for one am going to lay blame on the cruise company. They waited until the very last minute to make the cancellation full well knowing that the river was far too low leading up the the days just before the departure. When you take a chance on relying on weatherman to make your money for you, you also need to accept the outcomes of your actions. And just because you get a little rain, the water levels of rivers, lakes, and streams don’t just automatically return to normal.