Dream Settlement

[newmexicoNita]

I think I am going to take the minority view here, ( surprise, surprise) but I am glad to see the passengers getting the extra $200 compensation.

 

I agree that the newspaper put a sensational spin on the story by reporting it as a 'scam', but I also think that the current cruise contract is ridiculously one sided and, having followed a lot of posts about the Dream, at the time this was all going on, I also feel that NCL did purposely mis-lead or fail to inform passengers of the engine problems and the changes in itinerary that those engine problems would entail, and that they continued to sell cruises listing a certain itinerary when they knew it was not a realistic expectation that they would be able to deliver those ports.

 

Yes, NCL did not lose the case but, I don't think NCL willingly throws money away so I have to figure that they settled because they realized that there was a fair possibility that they would lose the case.

Some of what you say may be true, but most cases are settled out of court; it isn't worth it for large corporations to pay lawyers and court fees when they can pay X number of people a responsible amount of money and put it behind them. Whether NCL would have won or not is something none of has a clue, but it isn't worth it to fight these things. NMnita

[Carolyn1950]

I have a question.... did the sailing the week before make her original ports....?? If not, where did she go?

 

I'll bet my last dollar, they aren't going to get cash, but a future cruise certificate

 

The sailing the week before was to Alaska and no, they did not make all the ports.. The ship arrived in Houston from the Alaska cruise..

[cruiser-dude]

And every other subsequent cruise did not make all their ports, either.

 

NCL continued to sell a full 4-port itinerary and made no prior notification to anyone, until on board or almost so. In their Nov 10 website posting, they finally stated that engine trouble was the cause, but prior to this time, the hurricane season was hid behind to give the appearance that it presented many of the problems. During this time, one of you defenders even posted to me that the unrepaired August engine problems were fixed, that engine problems were "old news", and that the huricane season was solely to blame. Not so, huh? This was the problem the whole time...

 

Many posters keep saying that the passengers needed to do research and should know about this website, etc. Baloney. NCL is solely responsible for their own PR. If they fail to do so, then their reputation is on the line. It is not ANY passenger's responsibility to do anything other than book with NCL and look to them for a pleasant trip. Unfortunately for those of you who may now be smiling: NCL - by agreement - is not responsible to do much either, since they can basically sail wherever they want. Period.

 

I guess NCL did nothing outside of the written agreement, we think. However, it is very important for all of us (both "sides") to realize that while we may not agree whatsoever about the actions of these passengers, NCL's action (and lack thereof - if argued in that manner) was the fuel for the fire. Also, remember that a settlement sets precedent and can lead to other states AG's becoming involved in a much easier battle when a course of action has already been established. Yes - ask your attorney. While a settlement is not the same as a court-issued judgement, it still opens easier paths for the next ones... This is not as easy as a "nuissance case" or a "they would've lost" when you are talking about a company the size of NCL, who typically has counsel on staff or retained.

 

Let's simply look at the facts.

Engine broken - not communicated.

4 ports sold and continued to be sold for itineraries spanning 3 months.

No passenger told of obviously known, engine-forced shortened itineraries until practically onboard.

Port fees - alone - refunded.

Unhappy passengers take action.

 

So, argue all you want. As for me and my house, we will follow a different path... A path different than the decisions made by NCL in this situation.

[zaandam_2]

And every other subsequent cruise did not make all their ports, either.

 

NCL continued to sell a full 4-port itinerary and made no prior notification to anyone, until on board or almost so. In their Nov 10 website posting, they finally stated that engine trouble was the cause, but prior to this time, the hurricane season was hid behind to give the appearance that it presented many of the problems. During this time, one of you defenders even posted to me that the unrepaired August engine problems were fixed, that engine problems were "old news", and that the huricane season was solely to blame. Not so, huh? This was the problem the whole time...

 

Many posters keep saying that the passengers needed to do research and should know about this website, etc. Baloney. NCL is solely responsible for their own PR. If they fail to do so, then their reputation is on the line. It is not ANY passenger's responsibility to do anything other than book with NCL and look to them for a pleasant trip. Unfortunately for those of you who may now be smiling: NCL - by agreement - is not responsible to do much either, since they can basically sail wherever they want. Period.

 

I guess NCL did nothing outside of the written agreement, we think. However, it is very important for all of us (both "sides") to realize that while we may not agree whatsoever about the actions of these passengers, NCL's action (and lack thereof - if argued in that manner) was the fuel for the fire. Also, remember that a settlement sets precedent and can lead to other states AG's becoming involved in a much easier battle when a course of action has already been established. Yes - ask your attorney. While a settlement is not the same as a court-issued judgement, it still opens easier paths for the next ones... This is not as easy as a "nuissance case" or a "they would've lost" when you are talking about a company the size of NCL, who typically has counsel on staff or retained.

 

Let's simply look at the facts.

Engine broken - not communicated.

4 ports sold and continued to be sold for itineraries spanning 3 months.

No passenger told of obviously known, engine-forced shortened itineraries until practically onboard.

Port fees - alone - refunded.

Unhappy passengers take action.

 

So, argue all you want. As for me and my house, we will follow a different path... A path different than the decisions made by NCL in this situation.

 

well said

[luvmy3boys]

I agree. BTW, I am an attorney and I highly doubt that a company that allegedly sailed so many dates prior to hers with engine trouble would settle if they thought thier contract would get them out of this one. Fraudulent concealment is a tort and comes with punitive damages if a plaintiff is successful. The amount of potential plaintiffs seems overwhelming. Think - this is why Phillips Morris litigates ALL of their tobacco suits - otherwise you have a domino effect.

[ute_fan]

Just out of curiosity, I'd be interested in a response from a legal standpoint. The common view on these boards is that the contract between the ship and the passengers is a cruise for a certain # of days -- in this case 7 -- and that the ports of call can be changed without violating the terms of the contract. If so, the fact that the Dream completed its 7 day cruise would appear to indicate that the terms of the contract were fulfilled. Just wondering how those of you with legal backgrounds actually see the matter. I'm not an attorney, and I don't play on on TV :D , but am interested in how attorneys interpret the fine print in the contract.

 

For those of you who may have misunderstood my former posts on this thread, I just wanted to clarify matters. I was not in favor of the way that NCL handled this matter -- I think that morally, if not legally, they had some responsibility to their passengers to disclose that the ship was having engine trouble and that changes in the ports were expected. I found it interesting that when the Star developed problems with the azipod system, NCL handled the matter quite a bit differently. There was information posted on their website clarifying the Star's situation -- hopefully they learned from the negative publicity surrounding the Dream's engine problems.

 

My main complaint, on this thread however, was in the way that the local media here in Utah handled the situation. While NCL may have been "bailed out" by the hurricane, the fact remains that not all the changes were due to engine problems. The local media here didn't address that part of the issue at all -- hurricane Wilma certainly qualified as more than a little "bad weather" as mentioned on the TV report, while the press article didn't address weather issues at all.

[luvmy3boys]

Just out of curiosity, I'd be interested in a response from a legal standpoint. The common view on these boards is that the contract between the ship and the passengers is a cruise for a certain # of days -- in this case 7 -- and that the ports of call can be changed without violating the terms of the contract. If so, the fact that the Dream completed its 7 day cruise would appear to indicate that the terms of the contract were fulfilled. Just wondering how those of you with legal backgrounds actually see the matter. I'm not an attorney, and I don't play on on TV :D , but am interested in how attorneys interpret the fine print in the contract.

 

Maybe I should have explained what I assumed to be the basis of those customers' complaints. I have no actual knowledge of the complaint and I was just making a legal assumption. If I was the attorney on the case, I might suggest an action of fraudulent concealment.

 

The elements are that "1) defendant has knowledge of material facts which plaintff did not have and could not have discovered, 2) defendant was under an obligation to communicate the material facts to the plaintiff, 3) defendant intentionally failed to communicate, 4) plaintiff justifiably relied on defendant to communicate; and 5) plaintiff sustained damages."

 

My opinion is that those customers who purchased their cruise after the cruiseline knew about the problems and knew it would affect port stops may have had an action for fraudulent concealment. The customers that purchased tickets before the cruiseline had knowledge would not have had a cause of action b/c the contract controlled and ncl did not know at the time. The contract does allow for changes and the customer had no rights when ncl or any other line changes the itinerary. The problem is when the line knew about something prior to the cruise and a customer contracts expecting that cruise but is not informed of a potential problem. A contract cannot relieve ncl when it has commited fraud - it is a different action than that of a breach of contract. It requires intentional conduct on ncl's part. When ncl cancels a port for a storm or some other unexpected reason they are not intentionally trying to hide something from you, it just happened. Anyway, I don't know the full story but since I am going on the Dream in 12 days, I had looked up all of the dream topics and the engine thing came up quite a bit. I inferred that NCL knew about the problems for about 3-4 months. In that case, I assumed that the Utah action was based on the fact that NCL did not tell people who purchased their cruise that the engine was having trouble and could affect port stops.

 

I hope this rambling makes sense and I better get back to work (thankfully, I don't have to write down my billable hours or I would have problems today as much as I have been typing on this board!)

[ute_fan]

Thanks for the clarification. It does make sense to me that there would be a difference between the passengers who bought their tickets after NCL knew of the problem, but did not disclose it to passengers who were buying tickets after the engine problem, vs. the passengers who had already booked.

 

My only reason for following this incident as closely as I did was that we had several friends and relatives who were booked in January/February, and they kept asking me what the status of the ship and itinerary was. I don't think any of them posted reviews, but most of them were very satisified with the Dream. One couple wasn't impressed, but I think they've decided they prefer traditional cruising to freestyle, while the remaining 4 or 5 couples seemed to have wonderful experiences.

 

Just a word of caution. Two of the couples did have injuries in Cozumel. The first one was an injury that occured as the tender docked. Somehow the docking rope hit a piece of wood on the pier, which flipped up and landed on my co-workers head. Seven stitches at the Cozumel hospital later.... He ended up being fine, but was unable to participate in any of his planned shore excursions.

 

The second injury happened when the married daughter of one of our friends decided to rent a moped in Cozumel, and ended up breaking her knee. She was unable to continue her cruise. For anyone who is planning on renting a moped in Cozumel, I'd recommend doing lots of research about the dangers involved before taking that action.

[luvmy3boys]

Just a word of caution. Two of the couples did have injuries in Cozumel. The first one was an injury that occured as the tender docked. Somehow the docking rope hit a piece of wood on the pier, which flipped up and landed on my co-workers head. Seven stitches at the Cozumel hospital later.... He ended up being fine, but was unable to participate in any of his planned shore excursions.

 

The second injury happened when the married daughter of one of our friends decided to rent a moped in Cozumel, and ended up breaking her knee. She was unable to continue her cruise. For anyone who is planning on renting a moped in Cozumel, I'd recommend doing lots of research about the dangers involved before taking that action.

 

Oh, my. That is really unfortunate! Last time we stopped in Cozumel (on RCL) we were going to rent a car - until it pulled up and we realized that it was nothing like renting a car in the US. There was no way I was going to drive that car with my two year old in it! After that experience I cannot imagine renting a moped! The main problem is the way the people drive around there! When I was in Cancun on Spring Break (a long time ago :) There were so many accidents! We stayed away from the roads!

 

I appreciate the info and will be especially careful since my boys are 5 and 2. I am actually hoping the tender in Coz will put us close to the shops and a beach so we can walk. It is probably only wishful thinking.

Thanks again.

[Velvet Teddy Bear]

Hi all.... I just got off the phone with NCL....a very nice coustomer service lady told me the only way she could see he rest of us getting the EXTRA 200.00 was thru our own state agency......she was under the impression that this was being given to the folks in UTAH ONLY.... because of their states interference....????? so, looks like it will be necessary to do that..:confused:

 

just thought I would pass this along...

 

till we all sail again.....jus me....jim....VTB:cool: