TravelGuard Claim for one passenger only?

[dbsb3233]

We have a group of 5 people going on a cruise next month. One person was just diagnosed with a severe heart condition and needs open heart surgery in 10 days, with a 6-week recovery period. Under doctor's orders, he cannot travel.

 

We're in the period now where the cruise cabin could be cancelled with a 50% refund. But the remaining 4 of us are still going. The person in question did purchase TravelGuard trip insurance (offered through CostcoTravel, where the cruise was booked). But the other person in that cabin did not.

 

If we make a claim to TravelGuard now, will they allow the reservation to stay intact and pay out the full cost for the one person (which is half of the cabin total)? Or will they balk at that since we're still in the period where a cancellation would merit a partial refund (paid by the cruise line instead of TravelGuard, and thus TravelGuard would only have to make up the remainder)? We don't want to cancel the cabin because that would screw up the other person in that cabin who's still going on the cruise.

 

I'm almost wondering whether we should wait to contact TravelGuard to inform them of the situation until the cruise is totally non-refundable, so they don't have reason to force us to cancel for a partial refund first.

 

Also, does their coverage also pay for airfare? How about hotels rooms we've booked before and after the cruise itself, but not in the covered person's name (the covered person was going to share a hotel room with the other passenger, who's name the hotel room is in).

 

Any help appreciated. Thanks.

[sirwired]

You are indeed in a complex situation. I think I can answer some of your questions:

 

- Yes, most (all?) TravelGuard policies cover airfare, as long as it was included in your Trip cost. If all you insured is the cruise fare, then the airfare will not be covered in a cancellation claim.

- Waiting to cancel until you are in the 100% penalty period is a terrible idea. All insurance (of all types, not just travel insurance) requires you to "mitigate your damages"; at the least they will disallow any amount that could have been easily avoided. They are certainly going to notice during the claims process that the medical problem occurred well before the 100% penalty period. (Part of the claims packet is a requirement you send in your cruise line's cancellation policy.)

- Insurance policies will often cover the single-passenger surcharge if your traveling companion cancels. I don't know of any that cover your uninsured companion's single-passenger surcharge if you cancel.

- You can't collect on half the hotel room rate for two reasons: You cannot claim on trip arrangements not made in the name of the insured, and you also cannot collect on trip arrangements actually used. (As in, the hotel room is still being used, even if one bed is empty; there's no such thing as an occupancy pro-rated claim)

 

You are in a difficult situation caused by the fact you have one person with insurance cancelling and one person without insurance still going; the single-passenger surcharge is going to be a problem. The ideal solution would be to find somebody else that can travel in your sick friend's place; most lines will allow a name change for no more than a nominal fee as long as at least one name on the original reservation stays there.

[Algebralovr]

Agree with sirwired, the person with insurance needs to cancel now. Start by calling TravelGuard, since they wrote the policy. They will pay out for what they actually insured that in non-refu doable.

 

The person without insurance may be hit with a single supplement since he now is in the room alone and does not have insurance to cover it.

 

Is there a friend who can go in place?

[dbsb3233]

I ended up calling Costco Travel yesterday morning anyway to get their advice on it. While they couldn't speak on behalf of TravelGuard, they were pretty confident that it wouldn't be a problem. They said the same thing - that the dates on the medical records will show we knew about it at this point so there's nothing to gain by waiting. So I went ahead and called TravelGuard.

 

The rep I talked to there said they didn't see any problem with a claim for half of the cabin costs, the full airfare, and even half of the hotel room booking (even though it was in the other person's name). They said those are very common situations. Of course, that's just the phone rep talking, not the actual claims person that will ultimately decide.

 

They did say I needed to go ahead and change the booking with Costco to remove the person from the cabin. So I called and made those arrangements. But we're retaining the booking for the 1 person in the cabin that's still traveling, it's now just a single. We'll get some refund immediately from Costco just for doing that ($500+ for port fees, taxes, and prepaid gratuities, since they're only incurred for people that actually take the cruise). The remaining $1799 (the actual per-person base cruise fare) is still charged for the cabin, or course, since the cruise line charges you for 2 people no matter whether 1 or 2 people actually take the cruise (i.e. 100% single supplement). It's that $1799 that TG should reimburse as part of the claim, along with the full airfare, and half of the non-refundable hotel charges (according to the TG phone rep). We'll also include the cost of the China visa in the claim to see if they'll cover that too.

 

Not sure if this applies to all TG policies, or the specific ones for Costco. They may have the clout to warrant plans that cover more than lesser plans might. I also scanned the actual policy, and there's a very specific section ("Single Occupancy") that covers just this case -- a covered person having to cancel the cruise leaving another person as a single in the cabin. It says the policy does cover the difference above the per-person cost that the person still traveling would have had to pay if both were still traveling ($1799 in this case).

 

So if the TG phone rep was correct, then all should be fine. We're documenting everything with receipts now to be submitted with the claim.

 

Thanks for your help.

[sirwired]

Wow. That's a very generous policy.

[klfrodo]

I also scanned the actual policy, and there's a very specific section ("Single Occupancy") that covers just this case -- a covered person having to cancel the cruise leaving another person as a single in the cabin. It says the policy does cover the difference above the per-person cost that the person still traveling would have had to pay if both were still traveling ($1799 in this case).

 

 

 

Thanks for your help.

 

Had both parties purchased coverage, I would expect this to be true. Since only one person had coverage, I'd be very suprised if Travelgard paid the single suppliment for the non covered party.

I would imagine there was some miscommunication or misunderstanding on this issue.

However, I have been mistaken before.

 

Good luck

[cherylandtk]

I hope I am wrong too, but in my experience, the person canceling with insurance will be made whole. Not so much for the non-insured person. Having read most Travelguard policies, that is how it has played out in the past....but perhaps your TA has a unique policy to offer.

 

One other thing, board rules do not allow us to name TAs, so in the future don't use the name of the big box, just say 'TA' so your posts do not get deleted.

 

Please come back and let us know how this turns out, and best wishes to your friend who will be having surgery.

 

Eta-

I went back and found the specific policy for your TA from Travelguard. The Single Occupancy sections reads as follows:

The Insurer will reimburse the Insured, up to the Trip Cancellation and Interruption Maximum Limit shown on the Schedule, for the additional cost incurred during the Trip as a result of a change in the per person occupancy rate for prepaid, non-refundable travel arrangements if a person booked to share accommodations with the Insured has his/her Trip cancelled or interrupted due to the Unforeseen events shown in the Trip Cancellation/Interruption section and the Insured does not cancel.

 

I hate to say it, but this means they will cover the insured person only, not the non-insured person for the increased single passenger rate. Your group would be better off to find a replacement person to take the second bed. I note that you have four remaining people, including the one in this cabin. Does that mean you have three in one other cabin? If so, you may be better off in the long run to move one person from the triple to this cabin. The change penalties are much less for the third person than for a 1st or 2nd.

Edited March 10, 2014 by cherylandtk

[dbsb3233]

I hope I am wrong too, but in my experience, the person canceling with insurance will be made whole. Not so much for the non-insured person. Having read most Travelguard policies, that is how it has played out in the past....but perhaps your TA has a unique policy to offer.

 

One other thing, board rules do not allow us to name TAs, so in the future don't use the name of the big box, just say 'TA' so your posts do not get deleted.

 

Please come back and let us know how this turns out, and best wishes to your friend who will be having surgery.

 

Eta-

I went back and found the specific policy for your TA from Travelguard. The Single Occupancy sections reads as follows:

 

 

I hate to say it, but this means they will cover the insured person only, not the non-insured person for the increased single passenger rate. Your group would be better off to find a replacement person to take the second bed. I note that you have four remaining people, including the one in this cabin. Does that mean you have three in one other cabin? If so, you may be better off in the long run to move one person from the triple to this cabin. The change penalties are much less for the third person than for a 1st or 2nd.

But isn't that effectively the same result? As long as TG pays out the $1799 for the person medically unable to go, then we're good. That (plus the refund we're getting from the TA/cruiseline for 1 person's worth of port fees/taxes/gratuities) recovers half the total cost, so that the person still traveling is basically unaffected (he paid his half and owes no more).

 

I agree that in reading that passage again, it actually refers to the reverse situation - where the person still traveling holds the policy, and his roommate pulls out for medical reasons, this boosting his cost to continue on the cruise. I read that wrong the first time.

 

But the primary function of the policy should still apply - the person actually covered is medically unable to go, so he should get a claim payout for him not being able to go. That covers half the cost, leaving the roommate unaffected. And in fact, if we did put a replacement roommate in that room, then they might deny the claim because there would be no actual "loss" to recover.

 

Regarding the mention of TAs, I went ahead and listed it in this case not as a recommendation, but rather because it was germane to the specific TG policy. Perhaps that's against the rules, I'm not really sure. My apologies if it is. I know we're not allowed to recommend TAs by name (presumably because CC has TA's they promote via the DEALS section of the website), but I know there are different TG policies available that cover different levels of things, and I wanted to be able to reference this specific one (since this TA has a specific one for all their cruises).

[dbsb3233]

Had both parties purchased coverage, I would expect this to be true. Since only one person had coverage, I'd be very suprised if Travelgard paid the single suppliment for the non covered party.

I would imagine there was some miscommunication or misunderstanding on this issue.

However, I have been mistaken before.

 

Good luck

I misread that single supplement clause. That's only if the person holding the policy has his ROOMMATE pull out for medical reasons. It will then pay the single supplement for the person with the policy still continuing to go on the cruise.

 

But I think we're still good. As I said in my other reply, the person with the policy is the one pulling out for medical reasons, so they should reimburse his half of the base cruise fare (and the cruise line will refund the port fees/taxes/prepaid gratuities).

[caa]

But isn't that effectively the same result? As long as TG pays out the $1799 for the person medically unable to go, then we're good. That (plus the refund we're getting from the TA/cruiseline for 1 person's worth of port fees/taxes/gratuities) recovers half the total cost, so that the person still traveling is basically unaffected (he paid his half and owes no more).

 

I believe this is where your error is. If the insured person pulls out then the remaining person will be billed for the single supplement, which is probably about $1799.

[klfrodo]

caa is correct.

The person canceling will be made whole by Travelgard. (if things are as stated and no issue with the claim.)

However, the remaining "non insured" person will/may/most likely/maybe not be charged the single suppliment charge for being a single cruiser in a double occupancy cabin. The single suppliment charge is usually anywhere from an additional 50% to 100% of the original charge.

So, the non insured passenger could be charged an additional $1799 or whatever the cabin rate is.

 

You're next argument is,, WHAT:eek: ?? the cruiseline already has that money from the person who canceled! Doesn't matter. It's all spelled out in the terms and conditions of the cruise contract everybody agrees to.

Edited March 11, 2014 by klfrodo

[dbsb3233]

caa is correct.

The person canceling will be made whole by Travelgard. (if things are as stated and no issue with the claim.)

However, the remaining "non insured" person will/may/most likely/maybe not be charged the single suppliment charge for being a single cruiser in a double occupancy cabin. The single suppliment charge is usually anywhere from an additional 50% to 100% of the original charge.

So, the non insured passenger could be charged an additional $1799 or whatever the cabin rate is.

 

You're next argument is,, WHAT:eek: ?? the cruiseline already has that money from the person who canceled! Doesn't matter. It's all spelled out in the terms and conditions of the cruise contract everybody agrees to.

Here are the specifics... The base cruise fare is $1799 per person. The port fees/taxes/gratuities are $529 per person. That's a total of $2328 per person. The cabin had already been fully paid (for 2 occupants) in the amount of $4656 before the one passenger had taken ill.

 

When I called to remove the ill person, they said they will issue a credit for that person's port fees/taxes/prepaid gratuities ($529) and it will go right back to the credit card that paid for the cruise (which is standard since only people actually present get charged those fees). The new final cost of the cabin is $4127 ($1799 base fare for the person going + $1799 single supplement (you're right - there is a 100% single supplement) + $529 port fees/taxes/gratuities). We're paid in full at $4127. And that's what the booking confirms online.

 

The ill person will then file his claim with TG for the $1799.

 

I think you're suggesting that there will be a 3rd $1799 charge still coming, but I see no such wording in the terms and conditions, and the TA never suggest any such thing, and the booking shows we're paid in full. Nor can I find any logic in such a 3rd cruise fare needing to be paid to the cruise line. I guess I'm just not understanding the logic of such a thing.

[dbsb3233]

I believe this is where your error is. If the insured person pulls out then the remaining person will be billed for the single supplement, which is probably about $1799.

I think we're saying the same thing but I'm just not stating it quite right. Yes, there's definitely a $1799 single supplement now. The final cabin cost is now $1799 base fare for one person + $1799 single supplement + $529 port fees/taxes/prepaid gratuities. The new total cost is $4127.

 

The old total cost was $4656, which included two $1799 fares + two $529 fees/taxes/tips. The cruise line is refunding the 2nd $529 (for the 2nd person not going now) and keeping the 2nd $1799 (what was a 2nd fare now becomes the single supplement).

 

Then the ill person should be able to recover one of the $1799's to be made whole.

 

We're not worried about which person pays and which person gets the refund and claim checks. We'll sort that out amongst both people. The bottom line is that after it's all said and done, it costs the person still going $2328 (like it did in the first place) and it costs the ill person zero (plus the $120 for the insurance policy).

[caa]

Ah ok, the cruise line is keeping 100% of the cancelled person's fare and applying that to the single supplement. I might have gotten a couple of threads mixed up, but I thought you were still within the 50% penalty phase when you found out the insured person had to cancel. If that's the case, the insurance should only pay out 50% of that person's fare of $1799, even if the cruise line ends up keeping the entire amount for the other person.

 

What you're describing here is a giant loophole here for anyone who wants to cruise single without paying a huge supplement. Put two people in a room and buy "cancel for any reason" insurance on one of them. Cancel that person at the last minute and claim on the insurance. You've essentially bought the single supplement for the much lower price of the insurance (even if "cancel for any reason" doesn't pay back 100%, it's still cheaper than the supplement.) I just find it hard to believe that the insurance companies haven't closed this loophole by requiring all parties in a cabin to be covered on the policy.

[dbsb3233]

Ah ok, the cruise line is keeping 100% of the cancelled person's fare and applying that to the single supplement. I might have gotten a couple of threads mixed up, but I thought you were still within the 50% penalty phase when you found out the insured person had to cancel. If that's the case, the insurance should only pay out 50% of that person's fare of $1799, even if the cruise line ends up keeping the entire amount for the other person.

 

What you're describing here is a giant loophole here for anyone who wants to cruise single without paying a huge supplement. Put two people in a room and buy "cancel for any reason" insurance on one of them. Cancel that person at the last minute and claim on the insurance. You've essentially bought the single supplement for the much lower price of the insurance (even if "cancel for any reason" doesn't pay back 100%, it's still cheaper than the supplement.) I just find it hard to believe that the insurance companies haven't closed this loophole by requiring all parties in a cabin to be covered on the policy.

I see what you're saying. Early in the conversation with them I did ask that question (i.e. does it matter that we're still in the cancel with 50% refund period?). They said no.

 

But I'd already explained the medical emergency situation to them at the start of the call, so maybe they have different rules for documented medical emergencies vs "cancel for any reason"?

 

That would make sense. "Cancel for any reason" is a dangerous tool to give people, and I could see how it could be exploited. I would also think that such higher flexibility would warrant a much higher policy premium too.

 

But a true medical emergency is a different deal. That's what insurance is really designed for - something major truly going wrong, not for allowing someone just to change their mind (or game the system).

[sirwired]

I don't think it's going to work that way:

 

You have two people, (one who is uninsured), each with a cruise fare and taxes/fees.

 

The other, who is insured, must cancel. The cruise line will refund taxes/fees and 50% of the fare. The other 50% of the fare will be covered by the insurance company. Since half of the fare is being refunded, the insurance is only going to cover the other half.

 

I could see the cruise line agreeing to apply the 50% they kept to the single supplement (this would be up to the cruise line), but I don't see the insurance company covering 100% of the cruise fare if you are within the 50% cancellation penalty period. Somebody's going to have to come up with the rest of that single supplement.

[dread_pirate]

I have read exactly that scenario:

 

Passenger 1 pays $1000, say.

Passenger 2 pays $1000 in same cabin.

 

Passenger 1 cancels, gets reimbursed by insurance.

Passenger 2 should be OK, since cruise company still has $2000 for the cabin, so there should be no effect on Passenger 2.

 

Wrong.

 

Cruise company keeps Passenger 1's $1000 (or $500 if in the 50% period), and Passenger 2 gets charged the extra $1000 for the single supplement (if it's a 100% supplement).

 

Passenger 1 wins with insurance.

Cruise company wins with 3X the per person fare.

Passenger 2, if without insurance, is scrod.

Edited March 11, 2014 by dread_pirate

[dbsb3233]

I don't think it's going to work that way:

 

You have two people, (one who is uninsured), each with a cruise fare and taxes/fees.

 

The other, who is insured, must cancel. The cruise line will refund taxes/fees and 50% of the fare. The other 50% of the fare will be covered by the insurance company. Since half of the fare is being refunded, the insurance is only going to cover the other half.

 

I could see the cruise line agreeing to apply the 50% they kept to the single supplement (this would be up to the cruise line), but I don't see the insurance company covering 100% of the cruise fare if you are within the 50% cancellation penalty period. Somebody's going to have to come up with the rest of that single supplement.

I guess we'll find out. There was no 50% refund since we're still using the cabin. It appears that would only apply if we cancelled the entire cabin, not just one person from it. The TA talked to the cruise line and everything appears to be in place, paid in full.

 

Unless they were lying to us, the only remaining issue is what TravelGuard will pay on the claim. Maybe there will be a gotcha there still, but the initial conversation with them indicated they will pay out on the full $1799 per-person fare.

 

It wouldn't totally surprise me if there's an insurance fight though.

[cherylandtk]

Were you in 50% penalty or 100% penalty when the cancelation happened? Earlier you said it was 50%, but it seems the amount is now 100%. That is something the insurance company will pay attention to, and will only cover at the rate it was on the date of the diagnosis plus maybe a day to contact the cruiseline if it is right on the cusp.

 

The percentage of the penalty is not based on continuing use of the cabin, it is spelled out in the contract and is strictly based on the number of days prior to sailing.

[dbsb3233]

Were you in 50% penalty or 100% penalty when the cancelation happened? Earlier you said it was 50%, but it seems the amount is now 100%. That is something the insurance company will pay attention to, and will only cover at the rate it was on the date of the diagnosis plus maybe a day to contact the cruiseline if it is right on the cusp.

 

The percentage of the penalty is not based on continuing use of the cabin, it is spelled out in the contract and is strictly based on the number of days prior to sailing.

We're still in the 50% refund period for a few more days (29-56 days prior to the cruise), IF we cancel the entire cabin (which we're not). At least according to the TA.

 

It's the single supplement that is 100%, not the cancellation refund. Continuing with the cabin with one person in it requires a 100% single supplement (meaning $1799 base fare for the person still traveling + $1799 single supplement + fees/taxes/gratuities for one person).

 

But we're not cancelling the cabin, so there's no refund of the cruise fare (the 2nd person's base fare just shifts to being the single supplement now). The only refund we're getting is for one set of port fees/taxes/gratuities.

 

Maybe the TA is totally wrong, and has their online records wrong and there's a new gotcha coming, but as of now we're showing paid in full for the cruise at the original cost minus one person's fees/taxes/gratuities. And we'll just have to see what TG pays out on claim. They said over the phone it should be the full $1799 (i.e. one person's per-person base fare). But who knows, maybe they'll only pay half that. Or nothing. Or the full amount. There's a big disconnect between what people here have said and what the TA + TG have said.

Edited March 12, 2014 by dbsb3233

[cherylandtk]

Yep. Big disconnect. I hope for you the TA is right, but from what you have said here is what normally happens on all major cruiselines:

1. Joe cancels his booking due to his diagnosis. He does this on day 35 prior to cruising, which is in the 50% penalty period. Cruiseline gives him 50% of his fare back, (half of $1799, $899.50) plus port, tax, gratuity of $529 for a total of $1428.50

2. Joe files his insurance claim for the remainder ($899.50); he receives this within a few weeks and is made whole financially--which is not to discount the severe illness which caused the cancellation in the first place.

3. Sam, who is the roomie, does not cancel. He is re-fared at the double rate, and not having insurance, he pays the additional $1799 out of pocket.

 

I honestly don't understand how your TA is changing the booking and not seeing a cancellation with 50% penalty for Joe. Unless she is not actually changing the booking? But that raises many more questions....

 

Either way, the insurance company will likely only cover the claim from Joe at the 50% rate which is what is in effect now. That is $899.50, not $1799.

 

I would ask the TA why she expects Joe to file a claim for $1799 when he is not in 100% penalty yet? That might shake some thing loose.

Edited March 12, 2014 by cherylandtk

[cherylandtk]

I think I might know what the TA did. Joe has thus far only received back from the cruiseline (or been promised to get back) the $529 in port fees, right? Nothing of his fare itself?

 

Instead of refunding the 50% of Joe's fare back to Joe, she told the cruiseline to keep it and apply it to the revised fare for Sam. That is half a fare, or $899.50. I know you said you will work it all out among people later, but for now, let's call it Joe's money that Sam is using.

 

The insurance company is only going to pay Joe at a 50% rate, which is $899.50, for a cancellation on day 30+ because they expect he will receive the other 50% back from the cruiseline. That will leave Joe with a net refund in his pocket of $1428.50 not the $1799+$529 = $2328 you are anticipating. He will be short the 899.50 that Sam is using.

 

The cruiseline, since it did not actually 'refund' any of Joe's fare, also has not yet charged him a cancellation penalty. So that is the other half of Sam's increased fare. The cruise line did not take their penalty amount out. They may or may not yet do that. Given that it appears they marked the booking paid in full, Sam should pay Joe the $899.50 and consider himself fortunate to get a reduced single rate without insurance.

[dbsb3233]

Yep. Big disconnect. I hope for you the TA is right, but from what you have said here is what normally happens on all major cruiselines:

1. Joe cancels his booking due to his diagnosis. He does this on day 35 prior to cruising, which is in the 50% penalty period. Cruiseline gives him 50% of his fare back, (half of $1799, $899.50) plus port, tax, gratuity of $529 for a total of $1428.50

2. Joe files his insurance claim for the remainder ($899.50); he receives this within a few weeks and is made whole financially--which is not to discount the severe illness which caused the cancellation in the first place.

3. Sam, who is the roomie, does not cancel. He is re-fared at the double rate, and not having insurance, he pays the additional $1799 out of pocket.

 

I honestly don't understand how your TA is changing the booking and not seeing a cancellation with 50% penalty for Joe. Unless she is not actually changing the booking? But that raises many more questions....

 

Either way, the insurance company will likely only cover the claim from Joe at the 50% rate which is what is in effect now. That is $899.50, not $1799.

 

I would ask the TA why she expects Joe to file a claim for $1799 when he is not in 100% penalty yet? That might shake some thing loose.

Thanks for the info. Food for thought, at least.

 

Since we're all in agreement that port fees/taxes/gratuities are not in questions (i.e. they only apply to the people that actually go in the cruise), let's simplify this and leave those out and talk only about the actual cruise fare.

 

What you're saying is that the cruise line would actually be charging an extra $899.50 to drop one name from the cabin and let the other continue on as a solo. As if 100% single supplement isn't severe enough, they would effectively be charging 150% (100% SS + 50% more dropping a name in the 29-56 day window). That's the part that seems... odd.

 

So the exact same cabin (with one less person using it) now costs $899.50 MORE than it did before. Then we file a claim to recover just $899.50. Add it all up and it's the exact same cost as it was WITHOUT insurance. Might just as well forgo the insurance altogether and just not show up (other than saving one set of fees/taxes/gratuities).

 

That just seemed messed up. Maybe that's the way this is suppose to work, and maybe the TA screwed up and was suppose to do it that way (or we might get a call one day where they say they screwed up and are sending us an extra bill). I just don't know at this point. But it still seems messed up if that's the way it's suppose to work, that they would charge MORE for having one less person use the cabin.

[cherylandtk]

You got the numbers right, a net payment for the cabin of more than what it would have been if two people went as originally planned. For this reason, when people are in 100 % penalty and there is no insurance, it is often cheaper to have the ill person just be a no show rather than have their fare turn into a penalty and have the remaining person re-fared at a higher cost. Sometimes, as when we had to cancel last minute, the cruiseline gets more. They got four fares for our cabin, both of our 100% penalties AND the fares of the people who actually sailed in it with a snapped up last minute booking. (Our insurance company paid us back)

 

I agree with you it seems messed up at first. It might help to think of it as PENALTY vs. Actual FARE. If you cancel a cruise (or tour or safari or any other sort of package travel) after a certain date, there are penalties for doing so.

 

As for your costs associated with this, it just happened to work out as a net wash--cruiseline (apparently) did not actually impose the penalty and allowed the paid fare to be applied to the revised single fare. Your group was helped by two things, first that one person did have insurance and secondly that the cruiseline did not apply a penalty. If there was no insurance, you would be looking at the scenario in the first paragraph.

 

The cruiseline may or may not catch this later. Not quite a rule of thumb, but as long as they don't pay any money back, they may not care. But since they are paying back the port/tax, who knows how their accountants will see things next month?

[dbsb3233]

You got the numbers right, a net payment for the cabin of more than what it would have been if two people went as originally planned. For this reason, when people are in 100 % penalty and there is no insurance, it is often cheaper to have the ill person just be a no show rather than have their fare turn into a penalty and have the remaining person re-fared at a higher cost. Sometimes, as when we had to cancel last minute, the cruiseline gets more. They got four fares for our cabin, both of our 100% penalties AND the fares of the people who actually sailed in it with a snapped up last minute booking. (Our insurance company paid us back)

 

I agree with you it seems messed up at first. It might help to think of it as PENALTY vs. Actual FARE. If you cancel a cruise (or tour or safari or any other sort of package travel) after a certain date, there are penalties for doing so.

 

As for your costs associated with this, it just happened to work out as a net wash--cruiseline (apparently) did not actually impose the penalty and allowed the paid fare to be applied to the revised single fare. Your group was helped by two things, first that one person did have insurance and secondly that the cruiseline did not apply a penalty. If there was no insurance, you would be looking at the scenario in the first paragraph.

 

The cruiseline may or may not catch this later. Not quite a rule of thumb, but as long as they don't pay any money back, they may not care. But since they are paying back the port/tax, who knows how their accountants will see things next month?

I could see the cruise line charging totally different customers a totally new full cabin fare, as you described after your cancellation. That's an entirely different matter. That's not charging any particular customer MORE than full fare, that's just reselling a cabin that has been fully cancelled and is fully available for reselling. I don't have a problem with that.

 

But that's different than charging an existing set of customers with an existing cabin booking MORE than the normal fare they're already signed on to.

 

While the concept of a penalty for someone pulling out makes sense, it only makes sense for not getting some (or all) of your money BACK (IMO). Charging ADDITIONAL money for not going than actually going still just doesn't make any sense to me.

 

I'm not saying that what you're saying isn't the way cruise lines frequently do it, but such seemingly unfair business practices would sure lower my opinion of any cruise line that did that.

 

Fortunately (at least so far anyway), we don't seem to have gotten stuck in any trap of paying MORE than full cabin fare (beyond the 100% single supplement). The TG insurance claim is much more of an unknown, however. With our ill person's open heart surgery coming up within a week, I don't think he'll file the claim anytime soon, so it'll probably be a while before know how it ends up.

 

Interesting discussion, at least. Thanks for the info!