Help! I can’t make my cruise because of a hurricane

Can you be more specific why NCL’s BookSafe Travel Protection (itself) is a RIPOFF.

If the hurricane was in the area where the cruise was to depart from, then the cruise line should have refunded everyone. A refund, not a voucher for a future trip. However, I am unaware of any recent hurricane in or near the Seattle area. The cruise line operating in Seattle cannot be held responsible for a hurricane in Florida or New York, or anywhere outside of the actual cruise area.

Not knowing the location the OP was traveling from, it is difficult to offer suggested options on what they could have done to still reach the cruise by departure time. If the airports nearby were closed as precautionary measures, the OP and friends could have driven further from the affected area and possibly caught a flight from an unaffected airport. If they were actually in the path of destruction, I can see them not wanting to leave since they would not know when or if they would be able to get back home. Also, I understand that not everyone has flexible vacation time and taking off early to drive to another city airport may not have been an option.

A better insurance should have been offered by the cruise line, or purchased elsewhere by the OP, that would cover a situation like this.

I think if it was the cruise line cancelling the cruise a full refund would have been offered. But the actual cruise was not cancelled. But then maybe I’m not living in the real world.

The OP is from Hartford, Connecticut. So I guess it’s BDL to SEA or cross country just to get to the embarkation point.
Which brings me to the question – did they also insure the air portion together with the cruise?
Added: I do not know if by having both air and cruise on NCL’s protection plan would have changed the outcome.
But it didn’t not seem the OP was interested in getting money back. It looked like she was interested in keeping 100% of her cruise money even in certificates.

The way I read that policy, she could not make the cruise because of a covered event… “Common Carrier delay”, therefore she was entitled to a full refund of the unused portion of her cruise.

“weather related issues that made it impossible to join the ship would have been covered on any policy with which I am familiar. ”

I’m looking at a “real” travel insurance policy — the Allianz Classic Plan — and I’m wondering if the OP’s could have been much worse off going that route.

The policy has this covered reason for cancellations:

“bad weather or FAA mandated shutdown resulting in the complete cessation of services by the airline, the tour operator or the cruise line for at least 24 consecutive hours.”

Was there in fact a “complete cessation of services” at Hartford airport “for at least 24 consecutive hours?” (Do they count starting from the OP’s scheduled departure time?) If not, I fail to see any other covered reason for cancellation that would apply. In that case, if the OP’s gave up when their flight was cancelled and abandoned their trip, they could have gotten absolutely nothing for their cruise.

Now, if they instead refused the airline refund and asked to be re-accomodated (and missed their scheduled cruise departure) then it seems they would be covered under the Travel Delay and Missed Connection provisions. They would presumably miss much of the cruise, if they could make any of it all (e.g. Jones Act issues).

In theory they may be entitled to a pro-rated reimbursement for the missed cruise days in that scenario, BUT:

1) If the airfare was more than 25% of the cruise-fare (which seems likely) then they probably get less money/credit back in the end than with NCL’s protection plan.

2) If I’m reading correctly, the total payout for Travel Delay and Missed Connection benefits is limited to the insurance coverage amount. I can easily imagine that cost of chasing last minute transportation to ports like Ketchikan or Skagway to catch a cruiseship (plus overnight lodging costs) could add up and eat in to any cruise reimbursements the travellers would otherwise be entitled to.

Thoughts?

Actually, this is the case for all travel insurance policies. They reimburse for non-refundable expenses. That’s reasonable, though. They are making you whole, not giving you a profit. I don’t know what they do about credits, though, since you are not really getting the money back. But, if my trip is cancelled and the hotel agrees to refund, my trip insurance won’t pay that amount.

I hate the idea of credits. When we make a trip is often very constrained by work, family, and other issues. If we book a week trip and can’t make it, there is no guarantee that we’ll be able to cram in another week later in the year, so the credits may be worthless.

Regarding whether the OP had “real” insurance or merely a waiver, how do you know what the cruise line presented it as? Your argument is based on the “description of the remedy,” not what the OP says he purchased, or thought he purchased. As appears usual with the cruise industry, whatever they choose to call it, their “insurance” is designed to protect only one entity: themselves.

Because of the myriad exclusions, I’m sure waivers are more profitable for the cruise line than “real” insurance, and unless the OP specifically requested insurance, the rep was going to offer what was best for the company, not the customer. The rep may well have called it “insurance” — wouldn’t be the first time. Major lesson: Never trust a cruise line or tour operator to do what’s best for you.

Weisman bought insurance for a 75% credit for her cruise. NCL gave her a 100% credit for her cruise. How in the world is that NOT enough compensation? I guess people think she should have gotten the money back in cash, even though that’s not the insurance she bought? Or do you all think that they should have PAID her for not being able to make it to her cruise? Either explanation for the “no” votes seems totally unreasonable to me.

Well, any time I need a special courtesy I’ll ask a travel blogger / journalist to get it for me. Since the only time a company offers a special courtesy is when they get called out on their special extra thievery . . . .

If you are going buy trip insurance, buy an annual policy and spend the extra $100 per person for cancel any reason insurance without pre-ex conditions limitations – then you can just ignore all this crap.

like Charlie says, they purchased [and you can look at it yourself] a cancellation penalty waiver – wherein for whatever the premium was they had the cancellation penalty waived and were able to spend 75% of their fare on another cruise in the future. Its not insurance but its sold as insurance – but I bet that if you recorded a phone call that the NCL would NEVER use the word insurance no matter how much they are prompted . . . once they use that word and can be proven to use that word and the person needs to cancel they will get 100% of their money back -

Whether the op was fortunate in regards to the airline is all a matter of the airline. Many airlines routinely refund fares when weather causes cancellations. Delays are another story all together, but weather related cancellations are most usually refunded, and most contracts of carriage specify a refund is due. Now with that said, most airlines will initially offer vouchers, and only offer refunds when specifically asked, but it’s not too hard to get a refund either.

Actually, that is because they don’t sell “insurance”, they sell travel “waivers” – not a cash back deal – which is why we ALWAYS sell 3rd party insurance (TravelGuard or TravelEx)

That’s okay – I worked for the airlines for years, and part of the closing spiel was that tickets were non-transferable and non-refundable. They would ALWAYS claim they were never told when they wanted to cancel. Folks only hear what they WANT to!

And they don’t – they always refer to it as their cancellation penalty waiver – but folks here what they want!

That was IF NCL did the airline tickets – she did those on her own, so she needed real insurance coverage. We use TravelGuard!

It seems to me that the Cruise Line’s responsibility to the passenger arises in this instance because she purchased something represented as coverage “Just in case.” I don’t care what the fine print says, and you shouldn’t have to, either. This isn’t an instance of a traveler purchasing a non-refundable fare and being upset when the travel provider won’t refund her money anyway. This is a situation where the cruise line offered her an optional extra at additional cost and represented that it was insurance. She paid the extra cost, and is therefore entitled to be insured against loss. Legally speaking, sure, the cruise line can insist that the contractually obligated compensation amounts to a 75% credit toward a future cruise. Ethically, that’s sketchy. It’s just as “gotcha” as the FlyerTalk folks who buy mistake fares that Chris posted about this week.
In any event, Chris has done us the service of posting this story, and while you argue about who deserves what, I will choose not to do business with a company that treats its customers this way. Done deal.

For years, I have commented several times on this blog that a traveler should never purchase a travel protection plan (most of the times it is not an insurance policy in order to avoid getting their sales reps licensed as an insurance agent) or travel insurance from the travel provider because the plan or policy is written to benefit the travel provider NOT the traveler. There could be exceptions out there but I haven’t found it yet.

My recommendation is to purchase travel insurance from a third-party such as InsureMyTrip and Squaremouth not the travel provider or travel agent (unless the travel agent is licensed as an insurance agent and is NOT selling travel protection plans).
Please remember that insurance is about risk management (reducing the amount that you have to pay out in the case that a risk occurred). It is NOT going to cover everything. For example, getting pregnant and can’t travel is not covered by most if not all travel insurance policies. If it does then you are not going to pay $ 100 to insure a trip with a value of $ 50,000 unless there are hundreds of thousands of people taking $ 50,000 trips AND buying travel insurance.