Bad publicity ?

[barney]

An article in the Mos financial pages with a negative spin on RCI - both Royal Carib & Celebrity

In a nutshell, Noro virus on board !
Clients were warned in advance and told that if they had medical conditions that could be affected by this virus, then do not travel.
So a few didn't, and were then refused a refund.

RCI ignored repeated efforts until the MoS financial guy got involved and then, miraculously, the money was returned.

[Silver_Shiney]

Why, oh why, will people not take responsibility for their actions. If they were told not to come then they should bear the consequences themselves, not go looking for compo.

[qbman1]

Why, oh why, will people not take responsibility for their actions. If they were told not to come then they should bear the consequences themselves, not go looking for compo.

It's just not going to happen nowadays.

I wonder how many people who complete the disclaimer at check-in actually tick the "yes" box to say they have intestinal disorders (even if they have been throwing up all night) !!

[barney]

My belief is that in this case, the gentleman involved had an ongoing medical condition, which meant, should he catch Noro, and all the horrible things attached to it, it would render his medication useless.

So, in lieu of the warning from RCI, they decided not to travel.
Because the Company warned them in advance against travelling, they assumed that they would be refunded.
Obviously their insurance company didn't want to know and as it turned out, nor did RCI, until the journo got involved.
Then they stumped up a full refund.

The jury is out on this one, for me !

[allatc]

Interesting insurance issue here.

Quite possibly the gent had a "pre-existing condition" with an exemption of cover in his travel insurance policy so the insurance company would not accept claims associated with that condition so had he traveled, and caught noro-virus which then resulted in his condition deteriorating and treatment required he would not be covered. And since cancelling the cruise is related to his pre-existing condition which is not covered by his policy he can't claim for the cruise cancellation costs either.

The question then is whether the cruise line has any obligation to refund when it's the traveler's decision to pull out.

[Manoverboard]

NO, not for me.

If any passenger has an uninsured pre existing condition ( due to an exclusion ) that could seriously threaten his health if he is stupid enough to travel on a Cruise Ship in the middle of the Noro season then he deserves all he gets.

R.I.P dopey !!!

[Mervyn and Trish]

I'm basically with Moby on this one, though I'm cautious about all such tales in the press as they are often incomplete. And how often I wonder do companies stump up, even if they're not in the wrong, to make the story go awsy, once the media get involved? Certainly if I had a condition which was exacerbated by exposure to Noro I would avoid booking winter cruises, or indeed visiting other closed communities, where the risks are well known.

[Dark Knight]

I have such a condition and should I contract Noro, it is a major problem and could potentially be very , very dangerous for me, Merv
hence we are careful and I get royaly pissed off by dirty,unwashed, selfish people who travel knowing they are ill,t hey should be banned from cruising for life, lazy , dirty gits

[Mervyn and Trish]

I have such a condition and should I contract Noro, it is a major problem and could potentially be very , very dangerous for me, Merv
hence we are careful and I get royaly p***ed off by dirty,unwashed, selfish people who travel knowing they are ill,t hey should be banned from cruising for life, lazy , dirty gits

I agree with the second bit. But if the first bit is true, and I have no reason not to believe you Batty, you would be insane to cruise uninsured at the height of the noro season with just crossed fingers for protection and presumably would not expect compo if your decided to do so and suffered the aforementioned very very dangerous consequences.

[Dark Knight]

We are insured up to the hilt with special attention paid to the medical coverage, merv
Anyone cruising uninsured is a complete twonk

[Mervyn and Trish]

We are insured up to the hilt with special attention paid to the medical coverage, merv
Anyone cruising uninsured is a complete twonk

[anniec]

Why, oh why, will people not take responsibility for their actions. If they were told not to come then they should bear the consequences themselves, not go looking for compo.

My understanding of the full story is that the passenger arrived at the terminal and was handed a piece of paper warning of noro on board, and advising those with certain medical conditions that they may wish to reconsider boarding. That puts the passenger with an existing condition between a rock and a hard place - hop on board knowing this, and your insurer may not cover you as you knowingly put yourself at risk. Don't board and the insurer will probably treat it as "disinclination to travel".

My (minority) view is that if a cruise line warns passengers with certain conditions not to travel on their ship because of a disease that is lurking on their property, and does this at the last moment, then it should stump up a refund.

[oldbluefox]

I would have thought that if you had any premises which may put a person's health or safety at risk then it is your responsibility to advise not to enter. Having paid to go on the cruise and discovered the outbreak of NV at the last minute and given the option to reconsider, it seems reasonable enough to me that the passenger should be reimbursed or offered another cruise. I can't see it has anything to do with insurance.
Having said that, I wouldn't book a winter cruise anyway, if I had the relevant medical conditions, knowing that is the time when NV is rife.

[anniec]

I think we agree, oldbluefox. Thank you; I feared I would be in a minority of one.

[oldbluefox]

There are twice as many of you now anniec.
I never believe all of what I read in the papers because they often miss out relevant bits in order to make a story and they often bend the truth so it's interesting to look at the story from a different point of view. As one editor told me when I took them to task - "It sells papers!!" Says it all really.

[Manoverboard]

Why, oh why, will people not take responsibility for their actions. If they were told not to come then they should bear the consequences themselves, not go looking for compo.

My understanding of the full story is that the passenger arrived at the terminal and was handed a piece of paper warning of noro on board, and advising those with certain medical conditions that they may wish to reconsider boarding. That puts the passenger with an existing condition between a rock and a hard place - hop on board knowing this, and your insurer may not cover you as you knowingly put yourself at risk. Don't board and the insurer will probably treat it as "disinclination to travel".

My (minority) view is that if a cruise line warns passengers with certain conditions not to travel on their ship because of a disease that is lurking on their property, and does this at the last moment, then it should stump up a refund.

The Cruise Line provided good information and it is then up to the passenger to digest and respond to it ... his decision entirely. People are surely responsible for their own well being unless negligence is involved, in this instance the Cruise Line were seemingly being very responsible.

Taking it a stage further what would have happened if the dreaded Noro struck half way round .... more compo ?

[qbman1]

I think a lot of this case hinges on whether the passenger was notified in advance (as originally indicated) or only told upon arrival at the terminal (as Annie said). I tend to agree that if the passenger had travelled to Southampton, then the cruise line at least has a moral responsibility. What if it had been a fly-cruise and he had pitched up in Barbados only to be told there was Noro on board ?

[oldbluefox]

The cruise line were being responsible in warning the passenger but it wasn't the passenger's fault there was NV on the ship. It presented as an unsafe environment for anybody with medical conditions which could be affected by NV. I believe any reputable organisation in this situation would refund the cost of the cruise or offer another cruise at the same price. This is not the same as compensation.
Even if he had been warned in advance he should have been offered another cruise since the cruise line could not provide a healthy environment in those circumstances.

Compo if NV had struck half way round? No, since there is no way the cruise line could have predicted this.

Don't get stroppy just cos you won at the weekend!!!

[anniec]

Sorry, the original story I read had the passengers being informed at arrival at the terminal. Here's the correct(?) story: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/expe ... efund.html

It was a fly cruise, and they had got as far as Singapore...

[qbman1]

I think I would have been a tad upset if I had flown halfway around the world !

[Manoverboard]

It seems incredible to me that there is a story to tell, only a complete idiot would place themselves in a fatal situation just for a few days on a floating Hotel. If the risk is reasonable then it will be insurable ... if it isn't then stop at home for goodness sake and book one in April.

ps ... I could get proper stroppy if we don't win this coming weekend as well

[anniec]

It seems incredible to me that there is a story to tell, only a complete idiot would place themselves in a fatal situation just for a few days on a floating Hotel. If the risk is reasonable then it will be insurable ... if it isn't then stop at home for goodness sake and book one in April.

I've seen no suggestion that the passenger wasn't insured.

[Manoverboard]

It seems incredible to me that there is a story to tell, only a complete idiot would place themselves in a fatal situation just for a few days on a floating Hotel. If the risk is reasonable then it will be insurable ... if it isn't then stop at home for goodness sake and book one in April.

I've seen no suggestion that the passenger wasn't insured.

The passenger takes 10 tablets per day which would not work if he developed gastrointestinal problems.

So ... he goes on holiday in the middle of the Noro season in the certain knowledge that his non medicated pre-condition(s) could result in a critical health situation.

There would be exclusions and / or conditions covering this aspect of negligence on the part of the passenger.

[towny44]

It seems incredible to me that there is a story to tell, only a complete idiot would place themselves in a fatal situation just for a few days on a floating Hotel. If the risk is reasonable then it will be insurable ... if it isn't then stop at home for goodness sake and book one in April.

I've seen no suggestion that the passenger wasn't insured.

The passenger takes 10 tablets per day which would not work if he developed gastrointestinal problems.

So ... he goes on holiday in the middle of the Noro season in the certain knowledge that his non medicated pre-condition(s) could result in a critical health situation.

There would be exclusions and / or conditions covering this aspect of negligence on the part of the passenger.

So, as Noro on board a cruise ship can strike anytime, your solution to this guys problem Moby is that he should never book a cruise holiday, is that correct?

[anniec]

It seems incredible to me that there is a story to tell, only a complete idiot would place themselves in a fatal situation just for a few days on a floating Hotel. If the risk is reasonable then it will be insurable ... if it isn't then stop at home for goodness sake and book one in April.

I've seen no suggestion that the passenger wasn't insured.

The passenger takes 10 tablets per day which would not work if he developed gastrointestinal problems.

So ... he goes on holiday in the middle of the Noro season in the certain knowledge that his non medicated pre-condition(s) could result in a critical health situation.

There would be exclusions and / or conditions covering this aspect of negligence on the part of the passenger.

Looking at the demographic on board, the ships would be deserted if everyone took that approach; doubt any tablets work if one has a gastro problem.

Noro on board Arcadia in May this year. When can this poor bloke go on his hols?

It's doubtful any insurer would exclude his condition if he simply hopped on board a cruise ship in the winter. They may if he hopped on board after being warned.