Platinum Insurance - Has Anyone Else Had Problems Collecting?

[kazu]

That is very good advice and why I enjoy these boards. I would have thought $50K was plenty.

 

Our friend had to be air ambulanced home 12 years ago and the bill was just under $125,000 (Canadian) -and that was 12 years agao :eek:

[Jade13]

Our friend had to be air ambulanced home 12 years ago and the bill was just under $125,000 (Canadian) -and that was 12 years agao :eek:

 

From Where? The medivac bill is separate from other medical. We already carry over 1 million in medical insurance that can be used world wide. The 10K will cover our deductibles.

[LAFFNVEGAS]

Sadly all the cruise lines offer a product that really would not help a whole lot when it comes down to a real medical emergency. This is why it is far better and worth the few extra dollars to purchase a 3rd party travel insurance that will give you 100% cash reimbursement not cruise credit. The one I deal with which is Travel Guard offers $300,000.00 in Emergency Medical evacuation and $25,000 in on board medical. Surprisingly when it comes to a real medical evac (helicopter) situation many do cost close to $200,000.00 What the cruise lines offers will not even get you off the ship.

I will admit I did not actually read every post so forgive me if this was mentioned but sadly with the Plat coverage from HAL it is basically only good if both people in the cabin canceled, then they would have both been covered the 90%. The 2nd passengers now has a cabin to themselves and it now automatically turns into a single supplement situation.

[fann1sh]

Our friend had to be air ambulanced home 12 years ago and the bill was just under $125,000 (Canadian) -and that was 12 years agao :eek:

 

From Where? The medivac bill is separate from other medical. We already carry over 1 million in medical insurance that can be used world wide. The 10K will cover our deductibles.

 

Jade13, like Kazu I had a friend with an *insane* over $100K medevac bill just from Florida. Turf/money war between the Canadian insurer and the Fort Myers area hospital. Hospital refused to release her unless the flight had a ridiculously large team of emergency personnel (their own team, of course).

 

Afterwards, my friend told me she'd been well enough to have flown commercial, "but maybe not in coach...first class would have been fine". :D

 

kjn, I've purchased HAL CPP in the past for my very senior senior parents. However, as a fellow lawyer I made sure this type of protection was best for us. My mother has Alzheimer's, and I visualized all kinds of problems which would have been standard insurance coverage nightmares. The once we in fact had to make a claim (and collected with no problems) Mom broke her arm in the airport....nothing Alzheimer's related at all. C'est la vie.

[Jade13]

 

I will admit I did not actually read every post so forgive me if this was mentioned but sadly with the Plat coverage from HAL it is basically only good if both people in the cabin canceled, then they would have both been covered the 90%. The 2nd passengers now has a cabin to themselves and it now automatically turns into a single supplement situation.

 

The difference is that as a TA (and long time HAL cruiser) you knew this. The OP and his TA did not know this and so did not let others in the group know, and many were unrelated singles sharing cabins.

[Jade13]

 

 

kjn, I've purchased HAL CPP in the past for my very senior senior parents. However, as a fellow lawyer I made sure this type of protection was best for us. My mother has Alzheimer's, and I visualized all kinds of problems which would have been standard insurance coverage nightmares. The once we in fact had to make a claim (and collected with no problems) Mom broke her arm in the airport....nothing Alzheimer's related at all. C'est la vie.

 

Was this on the way to the cruise, or on the way home?

 

Apparently HAL now protects the vacation up until departure, and I would need to verify when Berkeley now kicks in. A year or so ago it was at 12:01AM the day of departure. I think the departure date for the insurance might have been different if you used HAL's air or not. I had looked into all of this when making a decision to purchase both the insurance and a one way air ticket through HAL (often one way air is cheaper through the cruise line, but because of the deviation fee to fly in a couple of days early it was slightly more). We bought our own air and took the risk if we canceled we would loose our flight costs.

[kjn]

fann1sh,

 

I always try to steer my group members toward insurance that best suites their needs, but as I'm sure you know, good advice often goes unheeded. What I always find interesting is how many have no idea that Medicare does not cover you when you leave the U.S. It's also interesting to see how many have never given though to the possibility of ever needing emergency medevac services. Yet despite these concerns, I still had a third of my group (and some of them in their 80s, that saw no reason to get insurance.

[fann1sh]

Jade13, this occurred before the rule change, a year ago. Mom's fall was in the Detroit airport on our way to the cruise, the day before sailing. I tried notifying HAL directly, but since I'd booked through a TA, was told the TA had to cancel for me. However, the HAL operator kindly gave me the travel agency's toll free number, since I'd not brought it with me!

 

By the time HAL got official notification, it was about 22 hours before departure. No problems with the refund.

 

kjn, I believe Canadians of all ages are hyper aware our national health coverage is worthless outside our country. My family has private insurance that is always in place, covering us whenever we cross the border, as long s the trip doesn't exceed a certain length. Then, we have to purchase top up for long trips.

 

However, with 3 adults sharing one cabin, HAL's Platinum CPP cancellation + out of country medical priced cheaper than "cancel for any reason" cancellation alone from other sources.

 

Of course, the time we used it, we only got 90%, rather than 100% of the cruise fare refunded (a provision I was aware of in advance.) Airline refunded 100% of air fare....eventually.

[kjn]

I just got off the phone with Robert, our travel agent. Apparently, everything with regard to this issue is now being funneled through a guest relations representative named "Chris." From what our travel agent could gather, he doesn't think Chris is a supervisor (or at least she didn't represent herself as a supervisor), but instead just the rep to whom this issue has been assigned.

 

It appears HAL is digging in it's heals on this. Robert said that Chris once again told him that it is his issue because he is our travel agent. Apparently, she also stated that there is "fine print" buried somewhere in the documents that are sent our to the travel agency. (As there was no mention of documents available on the website, I would take that statement as a confirmation that there is no reference to the rate guarantee on the Plan Description or on the HAL website.) Robert stated he could not find anything in the agency docs, and believed that whatever she was referring to should be in any client docs as well.

 

Apparently, Chris said she has no problem putting the HAL position in writing and sending it to both our insured (?) passenger and our travel agency. I will post a copy when received, so we can all see where this "fine print" is hidden and how HAL is otherwise defending its position on this issue.

 

In the meantime, has anyone ever received any other client docs from HAL that have anything regarding this buried in the fine print regarding dual-occupancy? From a legal perspective, I would find it interesting that HAL would rely on a non-CPP collateral document to support a disapproval of a claim. Have any travel agents seen this in any agency?

[Jade13]

I just got off the phone with Robert, our travel agent. Apparently, everything with regard to this issue is now being funneled through a guest relations representative named "Chris." From what our travel agent could gather, he doesn't think Chris is a supervisor (or at least she didn't represent herself as a supervisor), but instead just the rep to whom this issue has been assigned.

 

It appears HAL is digging in it's heals on this. Robert said that Chris once again told him that it is his issue because he is our travel agent. Apparently, she also stated that there is "fine print" buried somewhere in the documents that are sent our to the travel agency. (As there was no mention of documents available on the website, I would take that statement as a confirmation that there is no reference to the rate guarantee on the Plan Description or on the HAL website.) Robert stated he could not find anything in the agency docs, and believed that whatever she was referring to should be in any client docs as well.

 

Apparently, Chris said she has no problem putting the HAL position in writing and sending it to both our insured (?) passenger and our travel agency. I will post a copy when received, so we can all see where this "fine print" is hidden and how HAL is otherwise defending its position on this issue.

 

In the meantime, has anyone ever received any other client docs from HAL that have anything regarding this buried in the fine print regarding dual-occupancy? From a legal perspective, I would find it interesting that HAL would rely on a non-CPP collateral document to support a disapproval of a claim. Have any travel agents seen this in any agency?

 

Kjn,

 

I am not an attorney but I would still argue that the language on the HAL website implies that the Platinum Plan protects double occupancy because it specifically says that the Standard Plan does not. I think HAL needs to change the wording on their web site. Has your TA cut, pasted, and sent that language to HAL?

 

Also, did your TA in fact represent to you that only 90% would be refunded if both passengers canceled? If so, maybe the TA owes the money. My understanding is that the TA's carry errors and ommissions insurance.

 

Can you please clarify if HAL would actually go after the passenger who already sailed for the single occupancy supplement, or will they just subtract it from the canceling pax's refund?

[sirwired]

kjn,

 

HAL is reading their plan documents correctly. What they aren't doing is making a reasonable exception to the policy, which leaves groups of unrelated people in a lurch when it comes to supplements.

 

Looking into this further:

 

An older plan document (for bookings made prior to Sept '09), has the bizarre provision where supplements aren't covered for advance cancellations, but are covered for cancellations within 24 hours of departure. (Once the ship sails, you would never be charged a supplement...)

 

They apparently realized this was strange, because they changed it again in late October '09 to remove any mention of supplements.

 

Looking over the current plan document (as of April 2010) it makes no mention of single supplements. At all. Anywhere. To me, this says that if you don't actually cancel, you have no benefits to receive. As I've stated before, not covering supplements in a Cancel for Any Reason policy makes perfect sense, and is quite reasonable.

 

I don't read the even the older policies as saying that supplements aren't covered under standard, but are under platinum. In the '09 policies in the standard section it states that payment is 80% for Standard, 90% for Platinum. It then goes on to say that supplements are never covered. The platinum section states that it provides the same cancellation benefits as standard, except it pays more, and then it goes on to state that it also includes the BerkeleyCare stuff starting when you leave on your cruise. (And the BerkeleyCare coverage now makes no mention of cancellations at all, much less supplements.) (The current platinum policy that I found doesn't talk about the standard policy at all...)

 

This is going to have to go higher in HAL to somebody with authority to override the literal language in the policy. If this were a less-generous plan WITHOUT Cancel for Any Reason coverage, supplements would probably be covered for a medical cancellation.

 

SirWired

 

P.S., here is the links to the three plans:

http://www.hollandamerica.com/assets/cruise-vacation-planning/Pre_09.01.09Cert.pdf (old plan)

http://www.hollandamerica.com/assets/cruise-vacation-planning/CPPplan10.27.pdf (plan that stopped talking about covering supplements for 24 hours)

http://www.hollandamerica.com/assets//cruise-vacation-onboard/Full_CPP4.21.pdf (current plan)

[Jade13]

kjn,

 

HAL is reading their plan documents correctly. What they aren't doing is making a reasonable exception to the policy, which leaves groups of unrelated people in a lurch when it comes to supplements.

 

Looking into this further:

 

An older plan document (for bookings made prior to Sept '09), has the bizarre provision where supplements aren't covered for advance cancellations, but are covered for cancellations within 24 hours of departure. (Once the ship sails, you would never be charged a supplement...)

 

They apparently realized this was strange, because they changed it again in late October '09 to remove any mention of supplements.

 

Looking over the current plan document (as of April 2010) it makes no mention of single supplements. At all. Anywhere. To me, this says that if you don't actually cancel, you have no benefits to receive. As I've stated before, not covering supplements in a Cancel for Any Reason policy makes perfect sense, and is quite reasonable.

 

I don't read the even the older policies as saying that supplements aren't covered under standard, but are under platinum. In the '09 policies in the standard section it states that payment is 80% for Standard, 90% for Platinum. It then goes on to say that supplements are never covered. The platinum section states that it provides the same cancellation benefits as standard, except it pays more, and then it goes on to state that it also includes the BerkeleyCare stuff starting when you leave on your cruise. (And the BerkeleyCare coverage now makes no mention of cancellations at all, much less supplements.) (The current platinum policy that I found doesn't talk about the standard policy at all...)

 

This is going to have to go higher in HAL to somebody with authority to override the literal language in the policy. If this were a less-generous plan WITHOUT Cancel for Any Reason coverage, supplements would probably be covered for a medical cancellation.

 

SirWired

 

P.S., here is the links to the three plans:

http://www.hollandamerica.com/assets/cruise-vacation-planning/Pre_09.01.09Cert.pdf (old plan)

http://www.hollandamerica.com/assets/cruise-vacation-planning/CPPplan10.27.pdf (plan that stopped talking about covering supplements for 24 hours)

http://www.hollandamerica.com/assets//cruise-vacation-onboard/Full_CPP4.21.pdf (current plan)

 

Section 2 of what you have attached as the Current Plan has the effective date of the insurance as 12:01AM on the date of departure. That is the date that the lady notified HAL and why my initial posts wanted to know why this was not a Berkeley Care issue. Someone corrected me that this policy had changed. If not, than it appears to be a Berkeley

cancellation for a covered reason.

 

This is Section 3 of the "Old Plan" under Terms, but the language is the same that the coverage begins at 12:01AM on the date of departure. Why is this not a Berkeley cancellation for a covered reason? Was Berkeley notified the day of departure, or just HAL?

[cruiseco]

Kjn,

 

I am not an attorney but I would still argue that the language on the HAL website implies that the Platinum Plan protects double occupancy because it specifically says that the Standard Plan does not.

 

But they do make it fairly plain that the Platinum coverage, besides adding the post-departure benefits through BerkelyCare, only modifies the Standard plan in two ways.

 

Here's the wording:

 

"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."

 

The Platinum plan does not REPLACE the Standard plan, it extends it and increased the refund amount. I don't see anything in there that would have made me believe that any of the coverages and/or exclusions were otherwise changed.

[Jade13]

But they do make it fairly plain that the Platinum coverage, besides adding the post-departure benefits through BerkelyCare, only modifies the Standard plan in two ways.

 

Here's the wording:

 

"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."

 

The Platinum plan does not REPLACE the Standard plan, it extends it and increased the refund amount. I don't see anything in there that would have made me believe that any of the coverages and/or exclusions were otherwise changed.

 

But, the old plan (Section 3) and the new plan (Section 2), as posted, show the effective date of the additional (Berkeley) coverage having an effective date of the insurance as 12:01AM on the date of departure. And, that is when this lady canceled.

[cruiseco]

It appears HAL is digging in it's heals on this.

 

Good luck with this. The whole corporate culture of HAL dates back to Kirk Lanterman's days as CEO. Lanterman was the ultimate bean counter and getting an exception to any HAL policy was nearly impossible. They decided what, in their mind, was a policy fair to all parties and absolutely did not budge. I had never seen a company with such an ability to see everything in black and white. The concept of a "gray area" simply never existed with them.

 

It's been a while since I had to deal with them directly so maybe they've changed.

 

You best tactic will probably end up being to bypass the normal customer relations / complaints procedure. Back in the day. I would have gone to my local or regional sales rep and whispered in her ear something about this group wanting to sail again and how it would be a shame for HAL to lose all that business over a lousy $300. The money would show up from somewhere -- some advertising/promotions account or something like that -- and all would be good.

[sirwired]

Section 2 of what you have attached as the Current Plan has the effective date of the insurance as 12:01AM on the date of departure. That is the date that the lady notified HAL and why my initial posts wanted to know why this was not a Berkeley Care issue. Someone corrected me that this policy had changed. If not, than it appears to be a Berkeley

cancellation for a covered reason.

 

This is Section 3 of the "Old Plan" under Terms, but the language is the same that the coverage begins at 12:01AM on the date of departure. Why is this not a Berkeley cancellation for a covered reason? Was Berkeley notified the day of departure, or just HAL?

 

Under the Current Plan, the BerkeleyCare part makes no mention of cancellation at all, just interruption. This makes sense, since coverage isn't "passed" to BerkeleyCare until you actually start your HAL-arranged trip. (The odd "24 Hour" clause is gone entirely.) You can't cancel a trip once it starts; you can only end ("Interrupt") it.

 

Under the old (9/09) plan, if the cancellation didn't happen until BerkeleyCare took over... hmmm... that's a puzzler. Most insurance plans include a 100% bog-standard insurance clause (as in, it's in your auto policy, your homeowners policy, etc.) that you must reasonably mitigate your claim to the maximum extent possible. In this case, that would mean that if you think you aren't going to be able to travel, you cancel ASAP to minimize the claim amount. (This keeps the insurance company from having to pay a 100% penalty, when they could pay a 25% penalty.) However, that particular exclusion is not present in this particular policy...

 

I guess it all comes down to when the trip was booked. If it was booked any time after October '09, the supplements aren't covered... no way, no how. Under the September '08 - October '09 plan (I got the date wrong in my original post; sorry), they might be (it's a long shot); you'd have to ask a lawyer.

[sirwired]

But, the old plan (Section 3) and the new plan (Section 2), as posted, show the effective date of the additional (Berkeley) coverage having an effective date of the insurance as 12:01AM on the date of departure. And, that is when this lady canceled.

 

Jade, the new Berkeley plan doesn't cover cancellations at all. It would be a bad thing if the cancellation arrived during the current BerkeleyCare coverage.

 

The "12:01" provision in the old plan only refers to the non-cancellation benefits. ("Part B" of the BerkeleyCare section.)

[kjn]

 

Looking over the current plan document (as of April 2010) it makes no mention of single supplements. At all. Anywhere. To me, this says that if you don't actually cancel, you have no benefits to receive. As I've stated before, not covering supplements in a Cancel for Any Reason policy makes perfect sense, and is quite reasonable.

 

sirwired,

 

How would you define the term "cancel", and what steps would the passenger be required to take to effect a "cancellation" in order to receive benefits under the terms of this Plan? If you read the first three paragraphs of the Plan Description, the language clearly applies to cancellations prior to final payment date. If you apply that language to the entire pre-cruise period up to the minute the ship sails, everyone (not just singles traveling together) has a potential to lose benefits in circumstances beyond his or her control. For example, suppose a couple gets in a car accident and are sent to the hospital on the way to the ship. Under this scenario, they can't get to a fax to HAL prior to the ship sailing. As they haven't "officially" canceled, would they not be entitled to benefits under the CPP?

 

The more I read and analyze this, the more I am convinced Jade13 is right on point. Although not part of the Plan Description, the webpage is a solicitation that clearly defines the intent of the CPP to expand the coverage of the Standard Plan and allow the Plan purchaser to "cancel for any reason prior to the scheduled cruise/cruisetour departure and receive reimbursement equal to 90% of the eligible amounts paid to Holland America Line." In addition, as you point out, there is no language either excluding dual occupancy rate protection, or requiring the other cabin occupant to pay a single supplement as a precondition to receiving benefits.

 

I'd be interested to hear what others would define as "cancellation", and what would be included (or excluded) as an "eligible amount".

[Jade13]

sirwired,

 

How would you define the term "cancel", and what steps would the passenger be required to take to effect a "cancellation" in order to receive benefits under the terms of this Plan? If you read the first three paragraphs of the Plan Description, the language clearly applies to cancellations prior to final payment date. If you apply that language to the entire pre-cruise period up to the minute the ship sails, everyone (not just singles traveling together) has a potential to lose benefits in circumstances beyond his or her control. For example, suppose a couple gets in a car accident and are sent to the hospital on the way to the ship. Under this scenario, they can't get to a fax to HAL prior to the ship sailing. As they haven't "officially" canceled, would they not be entitled to benefits under the CPP?

 

The more I read and analyze this, the more I am convinced Jade13 is right on point. Although not part of the Plan Description, the webpage is a solicitation that clearly defines the intent of the CPP to expand the coverage of the Standard Plan and allow the Plan purchaser to "cancel for any reason prior to the scheduled cruise/cruisetour departure and receive reimbursement equal to 90% of the eligible amounts paid to Holland America Line." In addition, as you point out, there is no language either excluding dual occupancy rate protection, or requiring the other cabin occupant to pay a single supplement as a precondition to receiving benefits.

 

I'd be interested to hear what others would define as "cancellation", and what would be included (or excluded) as an "eligible amount".

 

Don't be surprised if HAL's resolution is to offer the lady in your group the $300.00 in the form of a Cruise Credit to use on a future cruise. I have been on these boards for a number of years and that is how they normally settle customer service issues. They do that when they do not want to set a precedent, or do not want to admit that the language on their web page is misleading. It is fine for those going on a HAL cruise in the next two years, but not good for those who are not.

 

The HAL CCP's used to have to be paid in full upon deposit and were non-refundable (which is normally the case for insurance), and has always been the case for Cancel for Any Reason plans (paid for at deposit). I argued for years that HAL needed to change this as the Protection part was coming from them anyway and they were loosing Insurance sales because people booked and just assumed like with Princess or Celebrity they could purchase the insurance when final payment was due.

 

Someone came on these boards about 2 years ago who paid a deposit on their cruise, along with the CCP, and decided to cancel the next day, and threatened a law suit and was bad mouthing HAL when they could not get the insurance refunded (about $600.00 for at least two persons). Their reason for canceling was that they felt HAL should be paying for their pre-cruise hotel which was required with their air. HAL gave them a cruise credit and they went on bad mouthing HAL anyway since they wanted cash. I never did find out what happened, but HAL was generous to make this type of exception.

[RedmondCruiser]

I have not read through all the posts so I am sorry if this is a retread.

 

Having worked in the insurance industry for over 32 years I can sometimes predict how they think, and this is an example of how they hate to think that someone may cheat them.

 

Looking at a base IS cabin, as an example, the PP double occupancy rate is $799 whereas the single rate was $1278. Therefore the single supplement is $521. Now if an unscroupulus person got the double pp rate and intended to cancel on half of the booking the number would look like this. Insurance return would be $719 (90%) and the cost of the insurance would be $99 making a total of $178. Therefore this person would save $343 off the single rate.

 

The likelyhood that people would do this on a regular basis is absurd. An old maxum from the industry is "The big print giveth and the small print taketh away"

[sirwired]

sirwired,

 

How would you define the term "cancel", and what steps would the passenger be required to take to effect a "cancellation" in order to receive benefits under the terms of this Plan? If you read the first three paragraphs of the Plan Description, the language clearly applies to cancellations prior to final payment date. If you apply that language to the entire pre-cruise period up to the minute the ship sails, everyone (not just singles traveling together) has a potential to lose benefits in circumstances beyond his or her control. For example, suppose a couple gets in a car accident and are sent to the hospital on the way to the ship. Under this scenario, they can't get to a fax to HAL prior to the ship sailing. As they haven't "officially" canceled, would they not be entitled to benefits under the CPP?

 

Yes, "cancel" involves calling or faxing HAL and informing them you are not coming. If HAL doesn't know about it, you are probably a "no show", not a cancellation, and therefore not entitled to any benefits, although they could exhibit some flexibility on this point in an extreme situation where you could not possibly send a fax. The CPP merely provides a 90% refund, no matter how close to sailing the cancellation is made; it does not otherwise modify the cancellation policy.

 

The more I read and analyze this, the more I am convinced Jade13 is right on point. Although not part of the Plan Description, the webpage is a solicitation that clearly defines the intent of the CPP to expand the coverage of the Standard Plan and allow the Plan purchaser to "cancel for any reason prior to the scheduled cruise/cruisetour departure and receive reimbursement equal to 90% of the eligible amounts paid to Holland America Line." In addition, as you point out, there is no language either excluding dual occupancy rate protection, or requiring the other cabin occupant to pay a single supplement as a precondition to receiving benefits.

 

I'd be interested to hear what others would define as "cancellation", and what would be included (or excluded) as an "eligible amount".

 

Yes, I pointed out that the supplement exclusion language is gone. However, if it's not listed as a benefit anywhere either, then it's not included (and therefore is an implicit exclusion.) Explicit exclusions are usually confined to exceptions to listed benefits; there is no need to exclude something that isn't listed as a benefit at all. (Yes, they did explicitly exclude it before, but just because the new policy (which was re-written) doesn't mention it at all doesn't mean it's now an included benefit.) It was probably explicitly excluded as part of the non-Berkeley part of the CPP in the pre 9/09 plan because the Berkeley part (only good for <24 hours before sailing) strangely did include supplements.

 

"Eligible Amount" probably refers to the language from the standard cancellation policy about not refunding money they haven't received (i.e. your travel agent is responsible for refunding their own commission, and HAL is not going to be on the hook for agent-charged cancellation fees), not refunding plane tickets until you send them back, etc.

 

Since no benefits are listed for the person not canceling that means that person is on their own under the policy. Now in this case, HAL deducted the single supplement from the 90% refund; this makes sense, because cabins are booked as a unit. To "balance the books" for the cabin, the supplement was charged to the other passenger at the same time the refund was issued to the first, and a check issued to the first passenger (or rather, their travel agent) for the leftovers. I suppose they could have instead issued a full 90% refund and levied a surprise charge on the On Board Account for the remaining passenger, or issued the 90% refund to the travel agent, along with a simultaneous bill for the supplement; the end effect would have been the same no matter how it was billed.

 

HAL could re-write the policy to cover supplements for medical cancellations in the CPP. (and, like many other trip insurance policies, toss in work reasons, terrorism, job loss, jury duty, etc.) But they don't. As I've said before, this is a unique situation that I believe simply was not anticipated by the person that wrote the policy; the resulting policy is a lot shorter and easier to read and understand than it would be otherwise. The vast majority of involuntary cancellations (that would normally be covered under the medical/job loss/jury/etc. provisions in a non-Any Reason policy) I imagine result in both passengers in a cabin canceling, and the generous "any reason" coverage takes care of both of them. (well, 90% anyway) Neither HAL, nor any trip insurance company anywhere, covers single supplements under "any reason" policies/riders; to do so would be financial suicide, as myself and many other posters have pointed out.

 

Kjn, it's not that I disagree with the basic point of the problem; I believe HAL should certainly waive the single supplement in this case (or at least issue a cruise credit.) I just don't think any relief is going to be found in the policy language.

 

SirWired

[kjn]

sirwired,

 

You raise some interesting points, but your analysis does a good job to clearly illustrate one thing -- there are many different ways to read and interpret this Plan, depending on what the reviewer infers and implies. Unfortunately for HAL, it is well-established contract law that ambiguous and conflicting provisions in any contract are always construed against the drafter, and HAL cannot escape the fact that it drafted this document.

 

Regardless, I'll be posting HAL's response when we get it, and we can all see what it's rationale is.

[kjn]

I was able to get a copy of a CPP Summary that was included sent with the confirmation paperwork on final payment date (Oct 31, 2010), and after the purchase of the non-refundable CPP coverage payment (which is paid with the deposit). Wow, there is certainly no ambiguity or room for interpretation here. (It never ceases to amaze me how things that are not readily apparent or are unclear before you buy, can suddenly be made so clear to you after you can no longer get your money back!)

 

There is also an "IMPORTANT NOTE" on the bottom of the summary that reiterate that if there is any conflict between this summary and the Plan Description, that the Plan Description controls. As has been so well-discussed in this thread, there is no mention of rate guarantees in the Plan Description, and one can only wonder why this very clear language isn't part of the Plan Description that HAL uses on it's website to promote this coverage.

 

If this were in the Plan Description, there would be no issue. My guess is that it is not included because it has a very negative impact on anyone that tries salvage a cruise, or substitute someone on the booking, when the other occupant can't travel.

[mabert]

It has given me a lot to think about regarding the Platinum Plan and what it actually covers.

 

It really is inadequate for medical and medivac and mostly cancellation protection. The poster who pointed out that the cost of the trip is one thing, the 100k+ cost of medivac is quite another.

 

And you are right, there is coverage with private third party that offer superior medical coverage for a similar price.

 

I have used CSA in the past, mentioned by previous posters and had to cancel due to a broken foot :(. Another time I had to use the cancel for any reason clause, also paid promptly, but at 75% I think. Both were promptly paid. I expect there are other good companies as well.

 

The cost of Platinum CCP was so cheap for our upcoming trip, I bought it. Will have to be the last time since my REAL concern is medical and medivac in a foreign country.

 

Lots to think about, thanks to all for their posts and comments. And to the OP for helping us all even rethink why we buy the insurance.

 

Excellent help.

 

Miriam

[kjn]

I received a copy of HAL's response to the request for reimbursement. To say the least, the response is BIZARRE. This response was not sent to our canceling traveler who now seeks reimbursement under her CPP plan, but rather to the guest that did not cancel. It apologizes to her for her dissatisfaction with the single supplement policy, that was not enforced upon her when she boarded, and also thanks her for comments she never made.

 

Attached is a copy of that letter. I apologize for breaking it into two parts, but it was the only way I could make it somewhat legible due to the limits on posting. When I get a chance, I will type out the text of the letter and post it, but until then, if you zoom in your browser you should be able to read the images.

 

I have a theory as to why HAL has addressed our traveling passenger and not the canceling passenger who now tries to get a reimbursement under the CPP she purchased. However, I would like to get all of your thoughts before I taint you with my theory as to why HAL is digging in its heals on this.

 

To that end, there is one additional set of facts that are absolutely incorrect in the HAL letter that need clarification. In the letter, HAL states, "it was your tour leader who informed the ship that Ms XXXXXX was not going. Had the guest canceled prior to sailing, it would have given you adequate notice to either cancel the booking and only pay the cancellation fees or take the option of traveling alone and paying the single supplement."

 

This statement is correct insofar as I provided notice, but incorrect because I gave that notice before boarding to the HAL agent at the check-in desk. Even more importantly, when I gave that notice, I was inform that our traveling passenger (aka the "guest" as referred to in the quote above) had already checked-in and told the check-in agent that her traveling companion was ill and would not be going on the cruise." According, HAL did have notice in time to inform our traveling "guest" of her options. Despite giving this notice, she was never told by the agent of the options of either canceling for a fee or paying the supplement. Needless to say, I was also never informed by the agent to whom I gave the notice of this fact.

 

From this, I can only infer that (1) neither her check-in agent or mine knew of this single supplement policy HAL now tries to enforce, or (2) the agent that booked our passenger forgot to enforce this policy at the time of boarding. Had the agent done this, HAL would have collected a single supplement (under protest) at check-in and there would be no issue regarding reimbursement at this point. Instead, our traveling passenger was processed, her credit card was swiped, and she was sent on her way to board the ship without mention of any supplement.

 

As I now see it, HAL now uses the failure to pay the single supplement as a means to hold a legitimate reimbursement hostage.

 

Any thoughts?