Platinum Insurance - Has Anyone Else Had Problems Collecting?

[Jade13]

I would think that HAL and the travel agent would be out of the discussion at this point and that the matter would be between the cruiser and the Berkeley Group. What does the Berkeley Group say?

 

Right. HAL's "Protection" calls for cancelation up until 24 hours prior to departure and that is clearly written in the plan details (unless something has changed this year). After that, the insurance part kicks in with Berkeley.

[kjn]

Jade13

 

So far, Berkeley insists it's HALs issue, and HAL hasn't offered any suggestions or assistance to that end. Unfortunately, we are in a bit of a Catch-22 at this point -- we can't really file a claim with Berkeley until we incur a loss by paying the supplement, and we don't really want to pay the supplement until we know we have a valid claim against Berkeley.

 

The only thing that I do know for certain is that if we again travel with HAL, no one will be purchasing the Platinum Protection.

[Jade13]

 

Here's the relevant wording:

 

"The CPP Standard Plan is not insurance; it provides no rights other than those explained above. For example, it does not protect double-triple-quad occupancy rates should one or more members of your party cancel nor does it cover expenses or unused services due to trip interruption."

 

.

 

They have to do this. Otherwise singles would purchase cabins for two occupants and cancel one within 30 days to 24 hours when they figure out it would be cheaper than paying the single occupancy rate in the first place.

 

My guess would be that most, if not all, "Cancel for Any Reason" plans would read like this.

[Jade13]

Sounds like that coverage isn't all the great. Happy OP came here to share this story with us.

 

 

The one occupant canceled the day of the cruise. This is a Berkeley insurance issue for a covered reason.

[sail7seas]

Yes, I follow the course of the thread.

The reason for HAL's position makes sense. People would cancel exactly as you describe.

 

My main negative with CPP is the very low level of medical coverage. I hope people are aware of that. If they don't need the medical coverage, then fine. Most of these senior folks probably are on Medicare and some may have thought they had medical coverage with CPP but in reality it's very low.

 

 

[Jade13]

triple post

[Jade13]

double post

[Jade13]

Jade13

 

So far, Berkeley insists it's HALs issue, and HAL hasn't offered any suggestions or assistance to that end. Unfortunately, we are in a bit of a Catch-22 at this point -- we can't really file a claim with Berkeley until we incur a loss by paying the supplement, and we don't really want to pay the supplement until we know we have a valid claim against Berkeley.

 

The only thing that I do know for certain is that if we again travel with HAL, no one will be purchasing the Platinum Protection.

 

Ask Berkeley why this is not their issue? I would need to review the entire plan (which I had done a number of years ago). I know I had the answers a number of years ago, because I had these same questions. The insurance would have to kick in once the protection ended, otherwise there is a 24 hour loop hole.

 

It sounds like the issue might be that HAL is actually looking at covering this under their protection plan, even though you clearly state the cancelation was made the day of the cruise. Is this the case? If so, it might be why Berkeley is saying this is not their issue.

 

Have Berkeley email or tell you where the plan can be found. I think it might be on line somewhere. The question is if this is a Berkeley insurance issue does it cover the second occupant? You need to find the plan details. Please let us know. I would be concerned if there is a 24 hour lapse (prior to departure) where a passenger is not covered by HAL or Berkeley.

 

The plan will provide the answers.

 

Please let us know what you find out.

[Jade13]

The link is on HAL's web site

 

"Except for Trip Cancellation, which is reimbursable by Holland America Line, the insurance coverage provided under the CPP Platinum Plan is underwritten by Virginia Surety Company, Inc., under policy #HTP04195. This plan was designed and is administered by BerkelyCare. IN CALIFORNIA: BerkelyCare is a service mark of Aon Direct Insurance Administrators, CA Insurance License #0795465. IN ALL OTHER STATES: BerkelyCare is a division of Affinity Insurance Services, Inc., in all states other than CA, except: AIS Affinity Insurance Agency, Inc. in MN and OK and AIS Affinity Insurance Agency in NY.

Review Entire Plan Description

updated 04/10"

 

This claim is definately under Berkeley as their portion of the plan takes effect at 12:01AM the day of departure. Is this claim not considered trip interruption?

 

I actually recall this clause because when I was researching thought there might be a loop hole between the 24 hours (HAL's protection) and the 12:01AM on the day of departure that the Berkeley plan kicks in. Of course for the 90% reimbursement one would have to cancel before 24 hours prior to departure. If sick one would have to wait until after 12:01AM the next day.

 

Our cancelation was with a 3rd occupant in our cabin (my step DD) and so the rest of the cabin fare was not affected.

[lazey1]

Jane and Sharon book a cruise. They can get separate cabins at $1,500 per person for single occupancy. They can get a cabin (same category) together for $1,000 per person for double occupancy. They choose to share a cabin and also purchase HAL's platinum insurance.

Their booking confirmation will be in both names even though they have separate addresses. The confirmation will state double occupancy.

Sharon has to cancel close to sailing, but Jane chooses to cruise. The platinum refund is 90%. The refund would have been $1,800 for the cabin booking if both cancelled. Since only Jane cancelled the refund would be $900 and there would be an added $500 single suppliment. $900 refund - $500 for now single occuapancy = $400 actually reimbursed.

 

In my opinion Jemima is exactly right. You have two separate policys and two different claims.

Sharon has a valid claim against her policy, cancel for any reason, and will be reimbursed $900.

Jane has a claim against her policy for $500 which is for an additional charge for a single supplement, this is not covered under the policy and will be denied.

Both claims will have to be submitted separately with supporting documents to Berkley Insurance before any definitive answer will be forthcoming.

[Jade13]

Also, the fact that HAL referances the fact that the CPP STANDARD Plan is not insurance and "does not protect double-triple-quad occupancy rates" would lead one to believe that the Platinum Plan does protect double-triple-quad occupancy rates.

 

"The CPP Standard Plan is not insurance, is administered by Holland America Line Inc., and may not be available for purchase in some locations outside the U.S. and Canada; it provides no rights other than those explained above. For example, it does not protect double-triple-quad occupancy rates should one or more members of your party cancel, nor does it cover expenses or unused services due to trip interruption."

 

I don't think this claim has anything to do with the 90% reimbursemet because the decision was made the day of the cruise, and according to the Platinum Plan, the Berkeley Plan (insurance) kicks in at 12:01AM the day of the cruise. HAL is covering this like it is a 24 hour plus cancelation and that is the reason that Berkeley is saying it is not their issue.

[cruiseco]

First of all, please note that the link previously posted in this thread dates back to 2008. The following is currently on HAL's web site and should be current:

 

http://www.hollandamerica.com/assets//cruise-vacation-onboard/Full_CPP4.21.pdf

 

This is the provision of the Platinum coverage that closes any "24-hour loophole":

 

"The CPP Platinum Plan enables you to extend the CPP Standard Plan by allowing you to cancel, for any reason, at any time up until the start of your scheduled sea/land/air arrangements made by Holland America Line, and receive a refund equal to 90% of the eligible amounts paid."

 

Note that this does not move the time when the BerkleyCare coverage kicks in forward by 24 hours to include any time prior to departure. Instead, it extends the coverage of the CPP up to the actual departure time by eliminating the "24 hour loophole." That 24 hour window is not filled by BerkleyCare, it's filled by HAL's CPP.

 

So, any losses that arise prior to the passenger actually beginning the cruise or HAL-arranged air to meet the cruise are covered by the cancellation fee waiver and are 100% the responsibility of HAL. It is only after starting the cruise or air/sea arrangements that a loss due to a trip interruption can occur and that is also the first time that BerkleyCare has any responsibility.

 

The root cause of the loss is a pre-departure cancellation of the passenger. By the terms of the policy, the full loss (including the single-supplement) is to be covered under the wording of the HAL CPP, which, unfortunately, specifically excludes any loss arising from a change from single to double occupancy.

 

The problem has to be handled with HAL as BerkleyCare has no responsibility in this matter. If the passenger had set one toe on the ship (or on a flight arranged by HAL) and then gone home that would be a different story. That would be a trip interruption and all would be fine as now it's a Berkley Care problem under the trip interruption coverage.

[Jade13]

First of all, please note that the link previously posted in this thread dates back to 2008. The following is currently on HAL's web site and should be current:

 

http://www.hollandamerica.com/assets//cruise-vacation-onboard/Full_CPP4.21.pdf

 

This is the provision of the Platinum coverage that closes any "24-hour loophole":

 

"The CPP Platinum Plan enables you to extend the CPP Standard Plan by allowing you to cancel, for any reason, at any time up until the start of your scheduled sea/land/air arrangements made by Holland America Line, and receive a refund equal to 90% of the eligible amounts paid."

 

Note that this does not move the time when the BerkleyCare coverage kicks in forward by 24 hours to include any time prior to departure. Instead, it extends the coverage of the CPP up to the actual departure time by eliminating the "24 hour loophole." That 24 hour window is not filled by BerkleyCare, it's filled by HAL's CPP.

 

So, any losses that arise prior to the passenger actually beginning the cruise or HAL-arranged air to meet the cruise are covered by the cancellation fee waiver and are 100% the responsibility of HAL. It is only after starting the cruise or air/sea arrangements that a loss due to a trip interruption can occur and that is also the first time that BerkleyCare has any responsibility.

 

The root cause of the loss is a pre-departure cancellation of the passenger. By the terms of the policy, the full loss (including the single-supplement) is to be covered under the wording of the HAL CPP, which, unfortunately, specifically excludes any loss arising from a change from single to double occupancy.

 

The problem has to be handled with HAL as BerkleyCare has no responsibility in this matter. If the passenger had set one toe on the ship (or on a flight arranged by HAL) and then gone home that would be a different story. That would be a trip interruption and all would be fine as now it's a Berkley Care problem under the trip interruption coverage.

 

Cruiseco, thank you for the clarificaton. We used this plan in 2007 and 2008, and at the time cancelation had to be made 24 hours prior to departure, and I am pretty sure there was some time period before the insurance kicked in and I always thought there was a lapse. I guess along with the change that the HAL Platinum can now be purchased at final payment, other changes were also made. The majority of people are traveling with a spouse or significant other and in most circumstances both would cancel. This does not appear to be a good plan for two unrelated single people.

 

To the OP, I think the person who canceled should get back what they can and the person who did not cancel should not owe anything more. I am not clear what percentage the person canceling would be refunded but it would still be more than any other "Cancel for Any Reason" Plan because most are only at 75%. Even Celebrity and RCCL only give a voucher worth 75% of the cruise cost and it has to be used in a fairly short time period.

 

This issue came up years ago when someone on this board had to cancel about a week prior to departure because their son had died. They were not happy that they only received a 90% refund because if they had a differant policy they would have been reimbursed at 100%.

 

This policy is great in some cases. We had a teenager who just decided she did not want to go on the trip at 31 days. We lost $44.00. If someone has a sick pet no other policy will refund 90% of their money back when they cancel.

 

Out of curiosity, would another policy (more expensive and based on age) have paid out more considering the higher cost of the policy?

[cruiseco]

e has a sick pet no other policy will refund 90% of their money back when they cancel.

 

Out of curiosity, would another policy (more expensive and based on age) have paid out more considering the higher cost of the policy?

 

Most, bit not all, third-party plans (without a cancel for any reason benefit) would handle it in this way:

 

The passenger that had to cancel due to illness would file a claim for 100% of his/her losses.

 

The remaining passenger would file a claim for the amount of any additional fare paid as a result of going from double to single occupancy. For example, this is from TravelSafe:

 

"Benefits will be paid, up to the Maximum Benefit Amount, for the additional cost incurred as a result of a change in the per person occupancy rate for prepaid Travel Arrangements if Your Family Member or Your Traveling Companion has his/her Trip delayed, canceled or interrupted for a covered reason and You do not cancel. "

 

This may also be one of those instances where paying extra for a CAR plan might not help you. If you both bought a CAR plan and your roommate cancels for a covered reason (illness, death in the family, etc) and you do not cancel you're covered the same as above. But what if that person cancels for a NON-covered reason? Can you still go and have the plan cover the single supplement amount? Maybe not. For example, with this TravelSafe plan they won't cover that cost -- only if the roommate cancels for a covered reason.

 

If you're sharing a cabin with someone be sure to find out exactly what your loss exposure is if that person just decides not to go or cancels for a non-covered reason. In most cases you'll be left holding the bag for any increase in your fare no matter what type of insurance you have..

[cruiseco]

e has a sick pet no other policy will refund 90% of their money back when they cancel.

 

Out of curiosity, would another policy (more expensive and based on age) have paid out more considering the higher cost of the policy?

 

Most, but not all, third-party plans would handle it in this way:

 

The passenger that had to cancel due to illness would file a claim for 100% of his/her losses.

 

The remaining passenger would file a claim for the amount of any additional fare paid as a result of going from double to single occupancy. For example, this is from TravelSafe:

 

"Benefits will be paid, up to the Maximum Benefit Amount, for the additional cost incurred as a result of a change in the per person occupancy rate for prepaid Travel Arrangements if Your Family Member or Your Traveling Companion has his/her Trip delayed, canceled or interrupted for a covered reason and You do not cancel. "

 

This may also be one of those instances where paying extra for a CAR (cancel for any reason) plan might not help you. If you both bought a CAR plan and your roommate cancels for a covered reason (illness, death in the family, etc) and you do not cancel you're covered the same as above. But what if that person cancels for a NON-covered reason? Can you still go and have the plan cover the single supplement amount? Maybe not. For example, with this TravelSafe plan they won't cover that cost -- only if the roommate cancels for a covered reason.

 

If you're sharing a cabin with someone be sure to find out exactly what your loss exposure is if that person just decides not to go or cancels for a non-covered reason. In most cases you'll be left holding the bag for any increase in your fare no matter what type of insurance you have..

[kjn]

Jade13,

 

Based on this individual's age, the cost of an outside policy that provides almost identical coverage (with the exception of cancel for any reason) is actually less. If you go to insuremytrip.com and plug in the numbers (age 74 and trip cost of $652), you'll find a Travel Guard Silver (Essential Expanded) policy for $81, complete with pre-existing conditions coverage. If you don't need a pre-existing conditions waiver, the cost is even less.

 

I just spoke with our travel agent and he is requesting a written explanation as to their position with regards to this issue and the rationale supporting it. I will post a copy of the response if (and this might be a big if) HAL provides it.

 

In my discussion with the our TA, I also got the feeling that this is probably not the first time HAL has dealt with this issue. (Our TA stated the HAL representatives were quick to respond to the issue, and were actually a bit hostile towards him, stating that he was our TA and he needed to deal with it. So much for customer service!) Unfortunately, despite it's apparent knowledge of this gap, HAL still allows its unknowing customers to fall into this trap.

[peaches from georgia]

The 3rd party insurance we always get has no 24 hr clause which is a hitch with the HAL policy where coverage is divided between the cruiseline and the insurance co. We have collected with no problem cancelling within 24 hrs of the cruise embarking.

 

I do think that the pax who continued with the cruise should be reimbursed for any additional single supplement owed by the cancelling pax if insurance does not reimburse for that. Through no fault of her own the continuing pax should not be the loser in this situation as a matter of basic fairness. I would not let someone I was traveling with get stuck if I had to cancel unexpectedly.

[cruiseco]

The 3rd party insurance we always get has no 24 hr clause which is a hitch with the HAL policy where coverage is divided between the cruiseline and the insurance co.

 

.

 

As explained in the earlier posts, there is no "24 hour clause/gap" with the Platinum coverage, which this client had.

 

Up until the moment you step aboard a HAL-arranged flight or the ship you're covered for pre-departure cancellations under HAL's CPP plan. Once you step aboard that flight or the ship you're covered under the BerkleyCare-supplied post-departure insurance plan. With the Platinum coverage at all times you are covered by one or the other plans from the time you purchase the coverage until the time your trip is over ("trip" meaning those arrangements made by HAL).

 

There would have been exactly the same result if this passenger canceled a month before sailing. The problem is not some time-related gap/clause in the coverage. The problem is that the plan specifically does not cover any additional monies due as a result of a change from double to single occupancy, no matter when the cancellation occurred.

[ironin]

Based on this individual's age, the cost of an outside policy that provides almost identical coverage (with the exception of cancel for any reason) is actually less.

 

That's the key, isn't it? One provides coverage for cancellation for any reason and the other provides coverage for specified reasons. I do hope that you ultimately get a satisfactory response and that someone finds it in their heart to waive the supplement charge.

 

BTW, If someone finds an independent "cancel for any reason" policy that pays equal benefits to the one not cruising but reimburses the one still cruising for any supplement charge as a result, I'd like to know. I'd love to do the Voyage of the Vikings next year but the single supplement is an additional 100% of the double-occupancy fare. I can't find anyone who wants to go, but I won't have any problem registering someone who probably won't go, but just in case they might change their mind they can do so at no charge. ;)The cost of such a policy and the equivalent 10% of double-occupancy charge would be a great bargain, far less than HAL's average 150% solo sailing fee. I'm sure that those who sail Celebrity, with its standard 200% of double-occupancy charge for singles (IIRC), will be very interested as well.

 

Not that I would really do that, but my point is that enough people would as to make the insurance prohibitively expensive unless it contains some provision such as the one HAL's Platinum policy does. For some reason, the terms "adverse selection" and "moral risk" spring to mind.

[Jade13]

That's the key, isn't it? One provides coverage for cancellation for any reason and the other provides coverage for specified reasons. I do hope that you ultimately get a satisfactory response and that someone finds it in their heart to waive the supplement charge.

 

BTW, If someone finds an independent "cancel for any reason" policy that pays equal benefits to the one not cruising but reimburses the one still cruising for any supplement charge as a result, I'd like to know. I'd love to do the Voyage of the Vikings next year but the single supplement is an additional 100% of the double-occupancy fare. I can't find anyone who wants to go, but I won't have any problem registering someone who probably won't go, but just in case they might change their mind they can do so at no charge. ;)The cost of such a policy and the equivalent 10% of double-occupancy charge would be a great bargain, far less than HAL's average 150% solo sailing fee. I'm sure that those who sail Celebrity, with its standard 200% of double-occupancy charge for singles (IIRC), will be very interested as well.

 

Not that I would really do that, but my point is that enough people would as to make the insurance prohibitively expensive unless it contains some provision such as the one HAL's Platinum policy does. For some reason, the terms "adverse selection" and "moral risk" spring to mind.

 

OT, regarding VOV. Someone just posted that their TA told them HAL is not doing VOV in 2012. I find that hard to believe since it is always a sell out. Right now there is a gap in Maasdam's posted itineraries for next year from July 15-August 18. There are still Inside cabins showing as available this year...

[trvlcrzy]

I normally don't post to these types of discussions, but this thread has bugged me...

 

I completely see the situation from both sides. The passenger should be reimbursed, and yet HAL must refrain from setting a precedent in refunding second passengers (who don't sail) without charging a single supplement to the first (who sailed).

 

Here's the part that bugs me. This is a bit of a conflict of interest, IMO. The passenger should be the insured party, not HAL. If HAL wants to insure its profits, then it needs to purchase the policy! The passenger doesn't pay the extra fee to guarantee HAL's funds, but to guarantee her own... :confused:

 

DH and I usually purchase our insurance from a third party. This reinforces that thought.

[Jade13]

I normally don't post to these types of discussions, but this thread has bugged me...

 

I completely see the situation from both sides. The passenger should be reimbursed, and yet HAL must refrain from setting a precedent in refunding second passengers (who don't sail) without charging a single supplement to the first (who sailed).

 

Here's the part that bugs me. This is a bit of a conflict of interest, IMO. The passenger should be the insured party, not HAL. If HAL wants to insure its profits, then it needs to purchase the policy! The passenger doesn't pay the extra fee to guarantee HAL's funds, but to guarantee her own... :confused:

 

DH and I usually purchase our insurance from a third party. This reinforces that thought.

 

 

With this plan the passenger does not have insurance until the cruise departs. HAL is providing protection up until than. HAL is the one taking the loss when they refund 90% of the cruise fare. HAL is not reimbursed by Berkeley.

[kjn]

Thanks to everyone for your outstanding comments. It is truly amazing how this forum can bring out so many excellent views on an issue.

 

I think trvlcrzy has hit the nail on the head. We have two ladies that have done everything right to protect their interests by purchasing the HAL protection plan,with an honest and sincere belief they were protected. Yet HAL has devised a self-serving system that leaves these ladies unprotected. Sadly, HAL could have easily fixed this issue and prevented others from gaming the system by waiving the supplement charge in those cases where cancellation results from death in the family, illness, etc. I can only conclude they have made a conscious decision not to do this.

 

In my 39 cruises, it never ceases to amaze me how a ship's staff will bend-over backwards to create customer loyalty and goodwill, only to have those efforts negated by corporate policies and stateside "customer service" that leave these same customers with a very bad aftertaste. Case in point -- our lady that canceled is a very seasoned cruiser who has logged many days on many cruiselines, including 6 previous cruises on HAL. Although she was very excited to be going on another HAL cruise, she has informed me that if HAL doesn't make this right, her sixth HAL cruise will be her last.

 

Again, thanks to all. This thread is doing a great job in bringing some transparency to the CPP. In 10 hours, this thread has been viewed almost 800 times. I can only hope someone at HAL is also reading these posts and listening.

[Jade13]

 

Yet HAL has devised a self-serving system that leaves these ladies unprotected. Sadly, HAL could have easily fixed this issue and prevented others from gaming the system by waiving the supplement charge in those cases where cancellation results from death in the family, illness, etc. I can only conclude they have made a conscious decision not to do this.

 

-- our lady that canceled is a very seasoned cruiser who has logged many days on many cruiselines, including 6 previous cruises on HAL. Although she was very excited to be going on another HAL cruise, she has informed me that if HAL doesn't make this right, her sixth HAL cruise will be her last.

 

.

 

But, again the "insurance" part with the insurance company does not kick in until the cruise departs. I think HAL is taking a huge risk with it's protection portion as it is allowing passengers to cancel without giving any reason up until departure and giving a 90% refund. No other cruise line or protection plan I have ever found does that. Your suggestion is that the Berkeley insurance start at some other point, which would have to be at the final payment date.

 

I think you said the cruise was very cheap, $652.00 (so is the $99.00 policy), so exactly how much money would she received back at 90% vs the amount with the other passengers single supplement? Remember, they are also subtracting the $99.00 protection plan cost from any reimbursement. How much of a difference are we talking about?

 

Interestingly it sounds like there was a change in the past year if the Berkeley insurance used to kick in at 12:01AM the day of departure. When did she purchase the insurance and when did this plan change?

[Jemima]

I've done some online reading on "cancel for any reason". It appears independent travel insurance policies often cover added costs such as single supplement for the remaining passenger, but only if the passenger cancelling did so for a covered reason. The "cancel for any reason" seems not to apply to added costs for the remaining passenger. Maybe one of the TAs that posts here will be able to explain how this works.