Port of Tampa fog this morning....

[Justmekaren918]

Relic

 

Obama care is not a insurance company, You get your insurance from a private insurance company.

 

My guess is Royal will play the act of god and weather card, and say the 25% off next cruise was generous enough. Royal is not going to jeopardize Brilliance or pax; since I believe there is not much room for error with a ship that size in the channel, and getting to and past Skybridge. With no safe place to turn Brilliance around if it is deemed unsafe to try Skybridge.

 

On another note a 39' boat drove [emoji32] into a resturant due to the fog in that area 1 of those mornings. Thankfully no one was miracously killed in the incident.

[looking4info]

The people who work inside the cruise ship terminals are NOT employees of the cruise lines. They work for a private company who contracts their service. If the information that you received was from them I wouldn't necessarily consider it to be fact but rather what THEY THINK will be done.

 

Let me state this one more time.......On Monday people at the port, wearing Royal uniforms were quickly passing out sheets with hotel names/phone numbers and saying..."you will need to get a room for the night and come back tomorrow. ROYAL will be reimbursing all of you for your room up to $250". "You can either call Royal or bring your hotel receipt with you onboard and they can also refund you on the ship".

 

For what it is worth....applicable? Any lawyers out there?

 

In the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and South Africa, apparent authority (also called "ostensible authority") relates to the doctrines of the law of agency. It is relevant particularly in corporate law and constitutional law. Apparent authority refers to a situation where a reasonable person would understand that an agent had authority to act. This means a principal is bound by the agent's actions, even if the agent had no actual authority, whether express or implied. It raises an estoppel because the third party is given an assurance, which he relies on and would be inequitable for the principal to deny the authority given. Apparent authority can legally be found, even if actually authority has not been given

Edited February 26, 2015 by looking4info

[orville99]

For what it is worth....applicable? Any lawyers out there?

 

In the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and South Africa, apparent authority (also called "ostensible authority") relates to the doctrines of the law of agency. It is relevant particularly in corporate law and constitutional law. Apparent authority refers to a situation where a reasonable person would understand that an agent had authority to act. This means a principal is bound by the agent's actions, even if the agent had no actual authority, whether express or implied. It raises an estoppel because the third party is given an assurance, which he relies on and would be inequitable for the principal to deny the authority given. Apparent authority can legally be found, even if actually authority has not been given

 

Yes. Apparent authority and vicarious liability are both tenets of the same legal principle

[bluegirlum]

For what it is worth....applicable? Any lawyers out there?

 

In the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and South Africa, apparent authority (also called "ostensible authority") relates to the doctrines of the law of agency. It is relevant particularly in corporate law and constitutional law. Apparent authority refers to a situation where a reasonable person would understand that an agent had authority to act. This means a principal is bound by the agent's actions, even if the agent had no actual authority, whether express or implied. It raises an estoppel because the third party is given an assurance, which he relies on and would be inequitable for the principal to deny the authority given. Apparent authority can legally be found, even if actually authority has not been given

 

Agreed. It may say something otherwise in the contract of carriage , but I think in this case there is a strong case for arguing that they are agents of the cruise line.

Edited February 26, 2015 by bluegirlum

[Earthworm Jim]

It's debatable whether cruise insurance is worth is for this kind of stuff. Yes, you could be left losing a couple grand if you lost out on a cruise. But if you lost all your money on one cruise out of 15 you might still come out ahead compared to the cost of insurance for 15 cruises. And I'd say far less than 1 in 15 cruises/flights has an issue.

 

Of course, some people will never take 15 cruises so that logic doesn't apply. Or maybe you're a higher than average risk of having to miss the cruise due to your health, relatives health, weather at the time of year you're traveling, etc. So for those people it might be worth it.

 

But the main issue is the medical coverage and medical evacuation, not being reimbursed for hotel rooms or flights or other relatively cheap stuff. If you needed a medical evacuation from overseas it could cost 10s of thousands of dollars, enough to bankrupt many people. Some health insurance covers a medical evacuation, but most doesn't. If yours doesn't, in my opinion it would be reckless to not get travel insurance with medical and medical evacuation coverage for your cruise. The other costs are penny ante in comparison.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Earthworm Jim

[KBD1516]

I have been following this thread when it was about the fog, and not it is about insurance. Logical actually. But I have learned something important about any disaster and what I am told by official or unofficial people representing that company: I will take our my trusty iphone and videotape them saying it to me.

 

One video of those conversations at the pier would be priceless.

[GTO-Girl]

 

My guess is Royal will play the act of god and weather card, and say the 25% off next cruise was generous enough. Royal is not going to jeopardize Brilliance or pax; since I believe there is not much room for error with a ship that size in the channel, and getting to and past Skybridge. With no safe place to turn Brilliance around if it is deemed unsafe to try Skybridge.

 

On another note a 39' boat drove [emoji32] into a resturant due to the fog in that area 1 of those mornings. Thankfully no one was miracously killed in the incident.

 

Just a footnote.......I agree safety is the #1 priority hands down so I truly do understand why they had to cancel our cruise. Even if we had boarded the fog was still around so we would have never been able to leave the port once onboard.

 

The fog offshore was horrible all day on Monday and even worse on Tuesday, but I guess Coach Urban Meyers and the Ohio Buckeyes onboard for the benefit cruise had somewhere they needed to be because on Tuesday afternoon several Coast Guard ships were sent to get them and navigate them under the Skyway Bridge.

 

When they passed under the bridge the fog was so thick that according to a passenger onboard he couldn't even see the bridge until they were passing under it....:eek:

 

Glad they made it safely because it had to be touch and go to get them in.

Edited February 26, 2015 by GTO-Girl

[Boytjie]

Ah, ok. If you haven't read this entire thread, I've been following it/posting from the beginning and I'm very anxious about us getting out on Saturday, so I just thought I'd ask. I was more worried about us being snowed in in the Midwest just a few days ago; I had no idea that I'd be obsessed with fog! :)

 

I too have followed the thread from beginning to end. Living in the Northeast and cruising out of Florida every February I am too familiar with snow delays! Wishing you smooth - and clear - sailing.

[reallyitsmema]

Just a footnote.......I agree safety is the #1 priority hands down so I truly do understand why they had to cancel our cruise. Even if we had boarded the fog was still around so we would have never been able to leave the port once onboard.

 

The fog offshore was horrible all day on Monday and even worse on Tuesday, but I guess Coach Urban Meyers and the Ohio Buckeyes onboard for the benefit cruise had somewhere they needed to be because on Tuesday afternoon several Coast Guard ships were sent to get them and navigate them under the Skyway Bridge.

 

When they passed under the bridge the fog was so thick that according to a passenger onboard he couldn't even see the bridge until they were passing under it....:eek:

 

Glad they made it safely because it had to be touch and go to get them in.

 

Brilliance was given priority and came in first, but the port opened to both inbound and outbound traffic. If it was at all "touch and go", the port would not have allowed tankers to come into port after Brilliance.

[Boytjie]

Technically, RCI is paying for out of pocket costs, but it's in the form of a 25% credit that can be applied to booking a future cruise, not straight-up cash. How valuable that is to the guests who had their cruise cancelled is dependent on a lot of factors.

 

I'm not going to get into an argument over whether that's good or bad, except to say that if it happened to me, as long as the 25% was equal to or exceeded my out of pocket expenses due to the delay/cancellation, then I'd be fine with that, mainly because I would still plan to go on a cruise in the future, so in the end it would net out.

 

I disagree; that is not paying for out of pocket costs, that is giving them a coupon which only has value if redeemed for the company's product.

[bluegirlum]

I too have followed the thread from beginning to end. Living in the Northeast and cruising out of Florida every February I am too familiar with snow delays! Wishing you smooth - and clear - sailing.

 

Thanks! I hope you enjoyed your recent cruise. Congrats on your 30th Anniversary.

[waterbugohio]

Let me state this one more time.......On Monday people at the port, wearing Royal uniforms were quickly passing out sheets with hotel names/phone numbers and saying..."you will need to get a room for the night and come back tomorrow. ROYAL will be reimbursing all of you for your room up to $250". "You can either call Royal or bring your hotel receipt with you onboard and they can also refund you on the ship".

 

We will not be getting an e-mail from Royal because once we were back at the hotel and called the number the people at the PORT gave us Royal started trying to say that what we were told was not right and they would only pay for Choice Air people to be reimbursed. This was NEVER stated at the port.

 

I am done trying to explain all of this. It is very easy to sit in your home and say what should have been done......bottom line you weren't there.

 

Dianne, please come back at some point and let all of us know how things work out. Some of us really are pulling for you and realize all you are asking for is what Royal told you they were giving you. And hoping the insurance company will figure out how to file the rest and help you out. You have been very upbeat and informative thru all of this and wish you the best. Just wish people on this board wouldn't get so nasty and tell people what the "should" have done. Hind sight is 20/20 and you only did exactly what Royal told you to do.

 

Do let others get you upset. You will be getting off the Brilliance when we are getting on. Wish I could buy you a drink!! Good luck

[Boytjie]

Thanks! I hope you enjoyed your recent cruise. Congrats on your 30th Anniversary.

 

Thanks, but it wasn't my 30th Anniversary but RSVP's (the charter company has been in business for 30 years). :D

[RDC1]

Probably an example of "the good ol' days" of airline loyalty programs. We haven't flown much since we relocated to Florida, but in our previous careers DW and I each accumulated more than 1 million air miles. That type of loyalty perk was one of the reasons why we chose specific airlines. We spent many evenings in hotels as the guests of the airlines in those days (I still have several of the dopp kits they gave us:)) , but I fear those days are long gone.

 

Airlines will still do this today. The main reason is that they were stranded in route. If their originating flight was canceled they the airline would do nothing. But if they are booked with a connection and the connection is canceled delaying them in route then the airlines still will. They may actually have to if the delay is over a certain length.

 

Though to be honest I probably would not stay in the hotels they give you vouchers to, in most cases.

 

Again the unique thing about this case is the time between the originally scheduled departure and the cancellation. If RCL had canceled the cruise immediately then their response is good (the refund and the 25%). However, once they delayed for 24 hours then it becomes a bit different of an issue for those expenses during that 24 hours period. If the personnel had not been handing out hotels lists and telling people they would be reimbursed creates a certain expectation that they should meet. I expect that if the cruise had actually sailed they would have gotten reimbursed.

Edited February 26, 2015 by RDC1

[mark290]

Not sure what any of those have to do with cruise lines having to pay for something beyond their control.

 

BTW, if RCI said they'd pay for Monday's hotels then they should. Should they have to pay for any costs incurred beyond that for something they had no control over? No. That is what travel insurance is for, or if you so chose, gamble and not buy insurance.

 

From what I remember reading, RCI apparently said it would pay for Monday and people were given vouchers. Has that been reneged? (I apologize if I missed some of that info posted)

 

You made the analogy to the airlines. A cruise line is not an airline.

The other businesses were examples of how every industry has different policies. It is your airline analogy that has nothing to do with a cruise line having to pay for something that is beyond it's control. Two different businesses.

[RDC1]

I disagree; that is not paying for out of pocket costs, that is giving them a coupon which only has value if redeemed for the company's product.

 

I would be surprised if over 50% of the future cruise vouchers end up being used. So the real cost to the cruise line is much much less.

[Boytjie]

You made the analogy to the airlines. A cruise line is not an airline.

The other businesses were examples of how every industry has different policies. It is your airline analogy that has nothing to do with a cruise line having to pay for something that is beyond it's control. Two different businesses.

 

I understand that they are are different businesses but I still wonder why one is held to a different standard to another for something that is very similar: cancellation due to weather.

 

Not showing up for a car rental or a hotel reservation is not like the others. ;)

[LMaxwell]

 

On another note a 39' boat drove [emoji32] into a resturant due to the fog in that area 1 of those mornings. Thankfully no one was miracously killed in the incident.

 

Did you see the photos? Looks like they were using 1100 out of 1200 horsepower that boat had to drive it so far up the beach/into the restaurant. Pure stupid to be going that fast in dense fog. NO excuses. Just plain stupid.

[jp30338]

She is dealing with it and sharing her experience. It has nothing to do with being a VIP or rich and powerful, it is about trying to figure out what the cruise line is going to reimburse people for and what the insurance company will then cover. People might think twice about booking this particular policy in the future if it doesn't cover certain expenses.

 

If you aren't interested in the information, skip the thread.

 

 

Crying about not being reimbursed for hotel during a weather related issue or "act of god", is crying about it to me, and acting like the world is ending because they cant afford a cheap hotel room.

 

verbal agreements MEAN NOTHING, ever watch Judge Judy? lol

Edited February 26, 2015 by jp30338

[GTO-Girl]

Dianne, please come back at some point and let all of us know how things work out. Some of us really are pulling for you and realize all you are asking for is what Royal told you they were giving you. And hoping the insurance company will figure out how to file the rest and help you out. You have been very upbeat and informative thru all of this and wish you the best. Just wish people on this board wouldn't get so nasty and tell people what the "should" have done. Hind sight is 20/20 and you only did exactly what Royal told you to do.

 

Do let others get you upset. You will be getting off the Brilliance when we are getting on. Wish I could buy you a drink!! Good luck

 

You have been so sweet and supportive and I cannot tell you how much I appreciate it! You are one of the few people who "get it" and know I am not out for freebies!

 

We have been on the phone with Royal again today and so far no luck. We have also been back on the phone with the trip insurance people and they "may" consider our claim..... which tells me more than likely not...but we shall see.

 

On a good note...... I just got a callback from the Tampa Port Parking garage and they are fully refunding the $75 we prepaid to park.....YAY!!!!

 

Maybe in the future we will get to sail together and if we do I will be sure to take you up on that drink!!! After all of this I may need it....LOL!!!

[mark290]

I understand that they are are different businesses but I still wonder why one is held to a different standard to another for something that is very similar: cancellation due to weather.

 

Not showing up for a car rental or a hotel reservation is not like the others. ;)

 

Maybe I can slow it down for you. You make a car rental reservation. You don't show. No charge to you. You make a cruise reservation. You don't show.

You pay the full fare. You make a dinner reservation. You don't show. You are not charged. You make a hotel reservation. You call to cancel the day of your stay. No charge to you. You call the day of your cruise to cancel you are charged the full cruise fare.

 

Those are all examples of different businesses handling similar situations and being held to a different standard by the consumer.

 

The point is they are nothing alike. Different industries handle different situations in a different manner. Comparing what the airlines do to what the

cruise lines do is pointless.

[coaster]

Crying about not being reimbursed for hotel during a weather related issue or "act of god", is crying about it to me, and acting like the world is ending because they cant afford a cheap hotel room.

 

verbal agreements MEAN NOTHING, ever watch Judge Judy? lol

 

I looked online Monday night out of curiosity and any decent hotel around the port was over $200. Not my definition of cheap. I agree expenses should be covered until the cruise was officially cancelled.

Edited February 26, 2015 by coaster

[TravelerThom]

boohoo! Its life, deal with it...

Crying about not being reimbursed for hotel during a weather related issue or "act of god", is crying about it to me, and acting like the world is ending because they cant afford a cheap hotel room...

You do realize that if you post what you feel is a legitimate complaint here on Cruise Critic at any future date (yes, even ten years from now) somebody (not me,too much work) will find these statements and point them out.

[Cindy]

Thanks for posting the insurance company's name. I'll be sure not to use them!

 

Weird that they might pay for the hotel but not other expenses. I thought those policies usually cover any expenses up to a certain dollar amount for trip interruption or cancellation.

 

I understand why you wanted the company's name, but that really doesn't do any good. All the travel insurance policies offer several different products, and whether or not/how much you're covered for trip delay, lost luggage, etc. is all dependent on the policy you purchase. My main reason for having trip insurance is for emergency evacuation, but I do insure very differently for a complicated trip involving international air travel, hotels, meals, etc. than I do for an hour drive down the road to Galveston to hop on a ship.

 

 

We have been on the phone with Royal again today and so far no luck. We have also been back on the phone with the trip insurance people and they "may" consider our claim..... which tells me more than likely not...but we shall see.

 

 

Don't let the insurance company put you off. Your cruise was cancelled, but technically I think what you have is a delay claim. The expenses you incurred were when the cruise was delayed, not cancelled. Your policy should, with receipts, reimburse you up to the allowable amount for your hotel and meals between the time you were scheduled to board until the time your cruise was cancelled.

 

Don't call again and talk to another phone rep. Just request a claim form. Submit it. If you're denied, move it up the food chain. Make sure you don't delete anything related to this until it's settled. If you still have the texts and e-mails about the delays, save them. Hold onto the list of hotels you were given at the terminal. You never know what little scrap of paper is going to help prove your claim.

 

I have had to use my travel insurance to leave a trip early due to a death in the family. Once I submitted the required documentation, I was paid with no questions.

[Justmekaren918]

Did you see the photos? Looks like they were using 1100 out of 1200 horsepower that boat had to drive it so far up the beach/into the restaurant. Pure stupid to be going that fast in dense fog. NO excuses. Just plain stupid.

They had 4 300 hundred's on the back of the boat. Here is a news report on it. Again, miraculously no one was killed; complete stupidity, and only some injuries.

 

http://www.wpoc.com/onair/st-pierre-23048/boat-crashes-into-beachfront-restaurant-13285193

 

Good thing Brilliance hadn't try to sail and them finding Brilliance instead of the resturant. Could you imagine all the damage? The scare to all on board? My guess is that is the main reasons she didn't sail. I am sure she and her amazing crew could do it, but it is the other idoits.

 

I just remember the cigarette boats playing with Brilliance as we were going out last April. What beyond idoits. One pictular boat was being a real class jerk during our muster drill and then there they were playing chicken after the bridge with Brilliance. Technically no one is supposed to be that close to the cruise ships. 300ft was established after 9/11! Pretty soon those idiots may find themselves in more trouble and beyond. I know it was a heck of a lot quieter and civil on the way in.

 

I am sure everyone else may have similar stories to tell.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Justmekaren918