Lawsuit from Epic February engine probs (Newsweek)

[erdoran]

A couple is taking legal action against a cruise ship company after the engine on one of its vessels failed and it undertook a different itinerary than planned.

Tonya Pool says she is unhappy with being offered credit instead of a refund after the Norwegian Epic ship crashed into the dock in Puerto Rico in February as it was docking for repairs.

Although no one was injured in the incident which was posted on social media, the cruise never got back on track with its planned schedule.

"We got in the middle of the ocean and started moving very, very slow. Then we were notified that the engine had failed," Pool told WPRI. "We were told we weren't going to go to the next island because there were still issues with the engine. Then they made another announcement that we weren't going to go to the third island. It was just one thing after another."

The Epic is one of Norwegian Cruise Line's largest vessels and has a capacity of 4,100 passengers. It explained the crash in February as being due to "prevailing winds [that] caused the ship to veer towards the pier, damaging two mooring points at Pier 3 East," The Orlando Sentinel reported.

It was on a seven-day cruise in the Eastern Caribbean, and was not originally scheduled to stop in San Juan. The vessel skipped planned calls at Tortola in the British Virgin Islands and St. Thomas in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Norwegian Cruise Line originally offered a 50 percent credit toward another cruise, and then upped its offer to 100 percent credit. But this did not satisfy Pool.

"Who's to say that we wanted to cruise with them again? How come we can't have our money back and make that choice if we want to cruise with them or not?"

Newsweek has asked Norwegian for comment. In a statement run by WPRI, it justified the offer of the credit because refunds were only given if the cruise was cancelled, and technically it had completed an itinerary, albeit an altered one. It added that it had paid for the cost of a hotel stay and airline change fees.

"We recognize the disappointment and inconvenience our guests experienced and we offer our sincerest apologies. Our team worked diligently to assist all guests while onboard as well as after disembarkation."

[ColeThornton]

Ship happensl

[FranknBeans]

A bad day at sea  is better than a good at work. These folks need to read the fine print. 

[graphicguy]

Seriously?  100% credit for another cruise and that's not good enough?  Unreal!

[GrabMyWrist]

Good luck! 😂

[GA Dave]

As posted in another thread, here is the contract these people "signed" when they purchased their cruise:

 

(c) Itinerary Deviation: The Guest agrees that the Carrier has the sole discretion and liberty to direct

the movements of the vessel, including the rights to: proceed without pilots and tow, and assist other

vessels in all situations; deviate from the purchased voyage or the normal course for any purpose,

including, without limitation, in the interest of Guests or of the vessel, or to save life or property; put

in at any unscheduled or unadvertised port; cancel any scheduled call at any port for any reason and at

any time before, during or after sailing of the vessel; omit, advance or delay landing at any scheduled

or advertised port; return to port of embarkation or to any port previously visited if the Carrier deems

it prudent to do so; substitute another vessel or port(s) of call without prior notice and without

incurring any liability to the Guest on account thereof for any loss, damage or delay whatsoever,

whether consequential or otherwise.

 

This should not even make it to court.  They are very lucky NCL is offering a 100% credit.

[Two Wheels Only]

For some reason, I get the feeling that Tonya has a "I'd like to speak to your manager..." haircut.

 

EDIT

I watched the news story.  More like "Shenaene from Martin".

Edited May 23, 2019 by Two Wheels Only

[adam_s_allen]

I keep hoping I'll take a cruise and some minor inconveniences happen that comes with the territory of cruising and be offered 100% credit on a future cruise.

[dexddd]

100% credit, wow, that was very nice.  They should have taken it and moved on.

[luv2kroooz]

Good for them for speaking out about what they believe in. Forget all the legal jargon and contracts. This is about doing right by your passengers. NCL has already violated the terms of it's own contract by issuing a future cruise credit. By the way, i'd have gladly taken the credit because these occurrences are infrequent.

 

I doubt the actual lawsuit will be successful, but the people that filed this lawsuit have already won by calling media attention to NCL in this instance. The media love stories like this.

[Cruiser_1977]

So, for those passengers that are like "I want the 100% FCC as a refund because I'll never sail NCL again" -  Give them the money, then ban them for life. Let them know, in writing & in advance, that receiving the cash means they are agreeing to the terms and negates the offer of future cruise credit.

[PTC DAWG]

Waste of the courts time. 

[JamieLogical]

10 minutes ago, JennyB1977 said:

So, for those passengers that are like "I want the 100% FCC as a refund because I'll never sail NCL again" -  Give them the money, then ban them for life. Let them know, in writing & in advance, that receiving the cash means they are agreeing to the terms and negates the offer of future cruise credit.

 

At first I was thinking that this lawsuit is a waste of time and money, because they clearly agreed to the Terms when they checked in for their cruise and, therefore, are entitled to nothing. Not even the 100% credit. But after reading your post, I like this idea better. Give them the refund, but then ban them for life. Just because they "swear" they will never sail NCL again doesn't mean they won't. Banning them is a good idea.

[adam_s_allen]

I like the idea of just giving them nothing instead and banning them.

[FenixRising]

I will put myself out there and take one for the team and take the 100% future credit off their hands so they don't have to deal with it.

[Gigi1068]

3 hours ago, Two Wheels Only said:

For some reason, I get the feeling that Tonya has a "I'd like to speak to your manager..." haircut.

 

EDIT

I watched the news story.  More like "Shenaene from Martin".

 

We may not agree with Ms. Pool’s course of action but there is no need to be disrespectful.  To reference Sheneneh when speaking about a black woman is an insult.  Perhaps you thought you were being funny but you were offensive instead.

[Two Wheels Only]

12 minutes ago, Gigi1068 said:

To reference Sheneneh when speaking about a black woman is an insult.  Perhaps you thought you were being funny but you were offensive instead.

 

What fictional character from a comedy could I have used that wouldn't have offended someone?

[Birdie And Sue]

The shirt version of the law suit is "WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH"....

Hope this gets laughed out of court and the lawyers involved disbarred

[Birdie And Sue]

23 minutes ago, Gigi1068 said:

 

We may not agree with Ms. Pool’s course of action but there is no need to be disrespectful.  To reference Sheneneh when speaking about a black woman is an insult.  Perhaps you thought you were being funny but you were offensive instead.

 

 

Most laughable post EVER.  if someone CHOOSES to be offended by a post on CC then they have problems.

[GUT2407]

1 hour ago, blcruising said:

Good for them for speaking out about what they believe in. Forget all the legal jargon and contracts. This is about doing right by your passengers. NCL has already violated the terms of it's own contract by issuing a future cruise credit. By the way, i'd have gladly taken the credit because these occurrences are infrequent.

 

I doubt the actual lawsuit will be successful, but the people that filed this lawsuit have already won by calling media attention to NCL in this instance. The media love stories like this.

No it’s actually all about legal jargon, as you call it, when you sue someone.

[GUT2407]

11 minutes ago, Two Wheels Only said:

 

What fictional character from a comedy could I have used that wouldn't have offended someone?

Clueseau, but I guess the French would be offended then, so probably no one.

[luv2kroooz]

33 minutes ago, GUT2407 said:

No it’s actually all about legal jargon, as you call it, when you sue someone.

The lawsuit will not prevail.

 

However, it is about bad publicity and the harm that can be created by it.

 

Solid customer service doesn't cling to legal jargon and contracts. It does what is right for it's paying customers given the circumstances regardless of what the legal jargon says.

[luv2kroooz]

1 hour ago, adam_s_allen said:

I like the idea of just giving them nothing instead and banning them.

Yikes. Many folks in public relations and customer service would agree that is usually not a good course of action.

[adam_s_allen]

6 minutes ago, blcruising said:

Yikes. Many folks in public relations and customer service would agree that is usually not a good course of action.

I wouldn't want to be doing business with anyone that would take legal action over something like this after (in my opinion) more than fair compensation has already been offered.

[luv2kroooz]

10 minutes ago, adam_s_allen said:

I wouldn't want to be doing business with anyone that would take legal action over something like this after (in my opinion) more than fair compensation has already been offered.

Neither would I, by the way. However, I also know that dealing with customers is tough. I just don't think it is a good idea to suggest they should start banning anyone that files a lawsuit or asks for something more than you think they deserve. NCL has well qualified in house counsel to deal with these things that happen in the course of doing business.