Royal Caribbean class action lawsuit

[baileybrad]

RCCL is our cruise line of choice. I do believe that they dropped the ball with what transpired around the Port of Galveston being closed for Irma and RCCL insisting that they were going back to the port to drop off folks and take on new passengers..........right up until way late in the process. Whether folks had insurance or did not have insurance does not preclude RCCL from ignoring the facts that were known at the time. The whole RCCL meteorologist having a take on the storm was pathetic.

[grandgeezer]

Yep, and the class portion of the lawsuit if they win (which I fully doubt) will get peanuts and the lawyer portion of both parties will make out like bandits.

 

JC

 

Apparently you know little about law. The burden of proof is much higher for a criminal case than a civil case. In a criminal case you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty; in a civil case you only have to prove that there is a better chance the person is guilty than not. This is explained very clearly in the final instructions from the judge. This would be a civil case.

Lawyers usually work on contingencies, most likely in the 35% of the award range. The award is based on all factors so if the plaintiffs won, although they won't become rich, they'll do pretty good. I was on a jury of a civil suit which ended last week so it's still fresh in my mind on how the system works.

[rukkian]

Apparently you know little about law. The burden of proof is much higher for a criminal case than a civil case. In a criminal case you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty; in a civil case you only have to prove that there is a better chance the person is guilty than not. This is explained very clearly in the final instructions from the judge. This would be a civil case.

Lawyers usually work on contingencies, most likely in the 35% of the award range. The award is based on all factors so if the plaintiffs won, although they won't become rich, they'll do pretty good. I was on a jury of a civil suit which ended last week so it's still fresh in my mind on how the system works.

 

A single lawsuit is not the same as a large class action. Many times the lawyers put in so many billable hours, that once it is done, the plaintiffs (if they win) get very little, after the lawyer fees, and then splitting it between all of the plaintiffs. I highly doubt it will be that big of an award for each person.

[Milwaukee Eight]

Apparently you know little about law. The burden of proof is much higher for a criminal case than a civil case. In a criminal case you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty; in a civil case you only have to prove that there is a better chance the person is guilty than not. This is explained very clearly in the final instructions from the judge. This would be a civil case.

 

Lawyers usually work on contingencies, most likely in the 35% of the award range. The award is based on all factors so if the plaintiffs won, although they won't become rich, they'll do pretty good. I was on a jury of a civil suit which ended last week so it's still fresh in my mind on how the system works.

 

 

 

I don’t believe this for class action suits.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Milwaukee Eight]

A single lawsuit is not the same as a large class action. Many times the lawyers put in so many billable hours, that once it is done, the plaintiffs (if they win) get very little, after the lawyer fees, and then splitting it between all of the plaintiffs. I highly doubt it will be that big of an award for each person.

 

 

 

Agree. I got like $6 per phone on Class Action against AT&T.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[xpcdoojk]

Apparently you know little about law. The burden of proof is much higher for a criminal case than a civil case. In a criminal case you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty; in a civil case you only have to prove that there is a better chance the person is guilty than not. This is explained very clearly in the final instructions from the judge. This would be a civil case.

Lawyers usually work on contingencies, most likely in the 35% of the award range. The award is based on all factors so if the plaintiffs won, although they won't become rich, they'll do pretty good. I was on a jury of a civil suit which ended last week so it's still fresh in my mind on how the system works.

 

Umm... this is a class action suit. Not a typical civil suit. If they win the class action suit the settlement is split between the lawyers and those signing up for the class action suit. Exactly what are the damages suffered by people? Did any of the people who went to Houston die? Serious injuries? Loss of future income?

 

Who all are eligible for this class action suit? Anyone ever booking a cruise with RCI or the hundred or so people who waited in Houston while a hurricane bore down?

 

The more I think about this the dumber it appears.

 

JC

[Aquahound]

The more I think about this the dumber it appears.

 

I agree.

 

I'm not defending RCI's idiotic Facebook responses, telling people to show proof of flooding and telling them to get to the port. However, I'm not quite on board with the premise of this lawsuit.

 

And one thing is for sure, if I ever have a claim against a business, class action is the last option I'd consider....if at all. The only people who make out in those cases are the lawyers. That's an unfortunate fact.

[StolidCruiser]

Apparently you know little about law. The burden of proof is much higher for a criminal case than a civil case. In a criminal case you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty; in a civil case you only have to prove that there is a better chance the person is guilty than not. This is explained very clearly in the final instructions from the judge. This would be a civil case.

Lawyers usually work on contingencies, most likely in the 35% of the award range. The award is based on all factors so if the plaintiffs won, although they won't become rich, they'll do pretty good. I was on a jury of a civil suit which ended last week so it's still fresh in my mind on how the system works.

 

Apparently you know little about class action lawsuits, the way lawyers "usually" work and how they are compensated for their services.

 

This type of response ranks right up there with "I'm not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!".

[TNcruising02]

I like sailing on RCL, but I will never book a cruise with them during hurricane season because I do not like the way they handled the past two hurricanes. I felt sorry for the cruisers who had to put up with them during those times. I liked the way Carnival and NCL handled the cruises. Hopefully, RCL will learn something from this experience.

[ColoradoGurl]

I don’t think RCCL told anybody to fly into an area that was a hurricane zone. They don’t do planes. Anybody who flew in to Galveston to catch the ship did so before it became a hurricane zone, because the people who do do planes don’t fly them in to hurricanes.

 

Plaintiffs travelled in 2 days before the cruise, nobody told them to do that. They were told the ship was still planning to be there on schedule and if they were not they would not get their money back. Seems to me the prudent thing for this plaintiff to do would have been to change flights so they were not coming in so far ahead of the ship. Or just to have booked air 2 sea in the first place.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

 

What about the people who didn't get to the cruise, because, like you said, flights were cancelled, but their insurance wouldn't pay under whatever "weather" clause was in there, because the weather didn't cause the actual cruise to be cancelled?

 

I agree with the people who say it's not Royal's fault that people didn't have the right insurance, but I also sympathize with people who did buy insurance, and believed that in the event of a hurricane, they could get their money back. It wouldn't have occurred to me either that even if there's a hurricane, the ship would find a way to sail into a port that most passengers couldn't get to, and that would automatically negate my insurance. I think that sucks.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Milwaukee Eight]

I like sailing on RCL, but I will never book a cruise with them during hurricane season because I do not like the way they handled the past two hurricanes. I felt sorry for the cruisers who had to put up with them during those times. I liked the way Carnival and NCL handled the cruises. Hopefully, RCL will learn something from this experience.

 

 

 

I guess you will not be sailing June 1 - November 30th each year. Not to mention, although rare, Hurricanes have occurred and struck US land in May. So that leaves 5 safe months to sail.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[nealstuber]

What about the people who didn't get to the cruise, because, like you said, flights were cancelled, but their insurance wouldn't pay under whatever "weather" clause was in there, because the weather didn't cause the actual cruise to be cancelled?

 

I agree with the people who say it's not Royal's fault that people didn't have the right insurance, but I also sympathize with people who did buy insurance, and believed that in the event of a hurricane, they could get their money back. It wouldn't have occurred to me either that even if there's a hurricane, the ship would find a way to sail into a port that most passengers couldn't get to, and that would automatically negate my insurance. I think that sucks.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

 

 

I’m just surprised there are not more people saying if people booked their air through air to sea, this would have been a non issue.

 

It’s amazing how the timeline has gotten distorted over the past month, people saying that everyone knew the port would be closed for sure through the weekend on Thursday when Carnival put out an announcement that day that the Saturday cruises would be leaving Sunday. They thought then that the Saturday cruises were going to be shortened by a day (as was the Breeze as her usual Sunday spot was going to be taken by the Saturday ships)and that’s why the option to cancel was offered earlier by Carnival.

 

When the weather kept both lines and the airlines from doing what they thought they’d be able to do refunds, not FCCs were issued. And I’m sure that applies to the plaintiffs in this case. THEY GOT THEIR CRUISE MONEY BACK AS DID EVERYONE ELSE ON THIS CRUISE, NOT FCC, FULL REFUND. Sure, since the plaintiffs flew in so early, the airports were not closed and they had to spend money on hotels and food for that week, but the flight cost and vacation time were sunk cost and it’s no different than anyone else encountering bad weather on their vacation. And, as these plaintiffs elected to make their own arrangements for travel and hotel those cost are separate and distinct from the contract they entered in to with Royal Caribbean. What happened to most who planned to fly in the day before, was their flights were cancelled on Saturday and they knew they would get that money back then, and a few hours later they found out they would get their cruise fare back on Sunday. ALL WITHOUT ANY INSURANCE.

 

And how big of a Helpless Laymo do you have to be to sit in a Hotel on the island, after the cruise was cancelled, instead leaving with everyone else?? Get in a car and make the most of it in Corpus, South Padre, San Antonio, Austin, or anywhere else 2 hour’s South and West of Houston.

 

The plaintiff knew he had his entire cruise fare at his disposal on Sunday and knew the cruise was not going to happen. Why didn’t he do something?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Edited October 3, 2017 by nealstuber

[Big_G]

I guess you will not be sailing June 1 - November 30th each year. Not to mention, although rare, Hurricanes have occurred and struck US land in May. So that leaves 5 safe months to sail.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

 

 

Being from an eastern seaboard state, I would suggest that most people when referring to hurricane season are actually referring to peak hurricane season which pretty much narrows it down to less than three months. No doubt Royal screwed up but if it were me, we would never have flown into that disaster. No cruise fare is worth that aggravation insured or not.

 

 

Gregg

[lbjen]

The cruise was canceled around 12 noon on the Sunday, 6 hours after the civil emergency message was sent out. Nobody was going anywhere by then. Van Fleet at one point, on Saturday night, replied to someone on Twitter that her father who works for NOAA was mistaken, and he knew better.

[lbjen]

Plenty of us were trying to warn people to not fly here because we had been preparing all week and knew what was coming, but you can’t blame people for not wanting to risk thousands of dollars, when they’re being told that there’s no risk and it’s just media hype.

 

The complete lack of empathy for fellow humans on this site is just astounding. Especially when it’s in favor of a corporation that doesn’t give two hoots about you.

[payitforward]

Basic free market economics.

 

And if they suffer large losses, they either have to charge more or lose money, which leads to going out of business.

 

Unlike governments, they cannot just print more money.

 

But as you said, there is room for RCI to raise prices and still fill ships. Or at least, make more per cruise (higher prices but less people also means less staff, less food, etc). And they will play with the equation until they make back their losses on the suit.

 

BUT, no matter what the result of the suit, we, the customers will pay.

 

Everyone is talking like this suit is going to break, or severely cripple the cruise line. Liberty only holds 3600 passengers. Of that number, very few will be eligible for this suit. As I understand it (and I could be wrong), it only applies to those who make the decision to fly into a hurricane zone in the first place. That's a small handful of people. They would have to get an astronomical settlement (not very likely) to even put a dent in RCCL. I think we'll all be just fine.

[Dennis#1]

Everyone is talking like this suit is going to break, or severely cripple the cruise line. Liberty only holds 3600 passengers. Of that number, very few will be eligible for this suit. As I understand it (and I could be wrong), it only applies to those who make the decision to fly into a hurricane zone in the first place. That's a small handful of people. They would have to get an astronomical settlement (not very likely) to even put a dent in RCCL. I think we'll all be just fine.

 

Very well said. I agree with your post.

[lbjen]

Agreed, as I said earlier, they really just need to reimburse these people for their expenses, I think that’s all most of them want.

[broberts]

The complete lack of empathy for fellow humans on this site is just astounding. Especially when it’s in favor of a corporation that doesn’t give two hoots about you.

 

Well said.

[JamesEM]

I was once part of a Class Action Law Suite that won and received a check for $1.32, the lawyers were the only ones that really did well.

[nealstuber]

Plenty of us were trying to warn people to not fly here because we had been preparing all week and knew what was coming, but you can’t blame people for not wanting to risk thousands of dollars, when they’re being told that there’s no risk and it’s just media hype.

 

The complete lack of empathy for fellow humans on this site is just astounding. Especially when it’s in favor of a corporation that doesn’t give two hoots about you.

 

 

Nobody “knew” exactly where this storm would hit or that it would end up stalling for days over Houston. I agree is was dumb for RCCL to say they “knew” - it would have been better for them to say they didn’t know and that a decision would be made when they did.

 

Your statement that the corporation dos not give two hoots about its customers is at odds with the way the customers on the ship were treated. And I have plenty of empathy, just not for people who don’t take responsibility for their decisions but expect big mean corporations to make decisions before they have the all the information they need to make a good decision.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[lucymorgan]

I was once part of a Class Action Law Suite that won and received a check for $1.32, the lawyers were the only ones that really did well.

 

Yes - however not everyone joins class actions for money. I joined the Volkswagen emissions class action in Australia not because I expect much in $ but because I believe corporations should not be allowed to mislead people (deliberately or through incompetence).

[SRF]

Apparently you know little about law. The burden of proof is much higher for a criminal case than a civil case. In a criminal case you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty; in a civil case you only have to prove that there is a better chance the person is guilty than not. This is explained very clearly in the final instructions from the judge. This would be a civil case.

Lawyers usually work on contingencies, most likely in the 35% of the award range. The award is based on all factors so if the plaintiffs won, although they won't become rich, they'll do pretty good. I was on a jury of a civil suit which ended last week so it's still fresh in my mind on how the system works.

 

Class action are not the same as an individual suit on contingency. The fee structure is different. And the judgement is spread out over everyone who was affected. So payouts to individuals are on the order of a few dollars or so.

 

Even in an individual case, there are different agreements, depending on the lawyer. Who pays expenses? Who pays for expert witnesses. I know of a number of cases, where the judgement was in the millions, that the client got a hundred thousand or so, after the lawyer got their cut, and charged expenses against the client's portion. Some lawyers have been known to bill their time on the case against the client portion, and take the contingency fee as pure profit. Some of these lead to lawsuits against the lawyer.

 

The legal term is "preponderance of the evidence" in a civil case. That is, the evidence supports one side over the other.

 

Interesting, that you are an "expert" on civil law from sitting on a jury.

[SRF]

...and those signing up for the class action suit. ....

 

Normally, you are included in the class, unless you opt out in writing.

 

Some, you have to sign up for, but most of the ones I have been part of the class, I was included unless I opted out. The only one I can remember having to sign up to be included was the Takata airbag class action.

 

In the Toyota case, where the cars kept going, a few people opted out of the class action, to sue directly as individuals. Potentially a much higher payout.

[SRF]

Everyone is talking like this suit is going to break, or severely cripple the cruise line. Liberty only holds 3600 passengers. Of that number, very few will be eligible for this suit. As I understand it (and I could be wrong), it only applies to those who make the decision to fly into a hurricane zone in the first place. That's a small handful of people. They would have to get an astronomical settlement (not very likely) to even put a dent in RCCL. I think we'll all be just fine.

 

I was commenting based on other posts from people hoping for a "huge" judgement against RCI, one that would "make them hurt."

 

Yes, more likely, the settlement will be for max incurred costs. So say the worst case was someone stuck in a hotel for 5 days. Plus airfare and food.

 

Once the lawyers take their cut, every passenger will get a check for $50.