Updated terms covering positive test on ships

[Underwatr]

14 hours ago, Megabear2 said:

Under US law, for instance, you cannot compel a citizen to be insured

I'm not sure that's codified exactly like that, rather that there is no law requiring such insurance.

Speaking personally, I would not embark on a cruise without insurance. The policies I've reviewed for recent travel often will cover "quarantine" (typically without specifically mentioning COVID) and where COVID is not covered it is listed as a named exclusion.

Edited January 7, 2022 by Underwatr

[Megabear2]

3 hours ago, Victoria2 said:

The situation is new with regards to the Covid pandemic which has affected the world since March '20.

So 4 months on with a major situation close on the horizon we should still consider these "discussions" to be dealing with a new situation? Surely the situation was new at the point the EU sailing rules were drawn up and the existence of an insurance issue brought to their attention (and acknowledged by them as correct) should by now be resolved or at the very least made clear to their customers?

 

I hasten to add it isn't just a Cunard/P&O/Carnival UK one it one for the cruise industry as a whole.  If something doesn't happen before European sailings start in earnest they could be accused of fiddling while Rome burns.

[Megabear2]

2 hours ago, cruising.mark.uk said:

Thank you.  

I think all elements of your text are covered in the 'In the event of testing positive on board' text at the second link in my post 45 above.

 

Given how difficult it can be to find these various sections of the website, I agree that it would be beneficial for CCL to include this text in an email to travellers in advance of their cruise.  I haven't cruised Cunard or P&O post re-start (due P&O in Feb), but have cruised with Celebrity and Princess, both of which bombarded us with emails about Covid protocols, testing procedures and the like in the days and weeks leading up to the cruise.  Assuming Cunard do the same, it would be easy to highlight this text in those emails.

I would agree for those already booked your suggestion is good.  I, however, take a slightly different view regarding anyone booking a new cruise (and I include rebooking with FCC in this as it will become a new contract under prevailing terms at the point of confirmation) in that the cruise line website, telephone call centre or travel agent should carry the information or have a verbal clause read to the person booking in the same way as a purchase over the telephone to enter a contract with car insurance or a utility company does.

 

This way there can be absolutely no excuse for passengers claiming they were not made aware.

Edited January 7, 2022 by Megabear2

[Megabear2]

1 hour ago, Underwatr said:

I'm not sure that's codified exactly like that, rather that there is no law requiring such insurance.

Speaking personally, I would not embark on a cruise without insurance. The policies I've reviewed for recent travel often will cover "quarantine" (typically without specifically mentioning COVID) and where COVID is not covered it is listed as a named exclusion.

I bow to your superior knowledge of the US market!  My comment was actually based on an explanation from Cunard a few weeks ago when the original disclaimer letters started circulating.  I had one of those for a Princess UK seacation and thought nothing of it at the time because it is virtually impossible to buy any UK "package" holiday without purchasing and showing proof of travel insurance.

 

Cunard and Princess indicated at that time that the letters were being used for US guests as under the law in USA they could not make a contract stating you could not buy their product unless you took specific insurance 

Edited January 7, 2022 by Megabear2

[Interestedcruisefan]

I think all passengers due to cruise next few months should get full upto date disclosure about the quarantine situation

 

That's straightforward, honest and transparent. Not flowery bs

 

That will be the better long term option for everybody concerned

 

Many people who work for the cruiselines themselves must have huge empathy for passengers who they have to disembark and concern for their well-being 

 

Imagine how the captains of the ships feel seeing elderly passengers being offloaded into the hands of others?

 

And sprayed as they leave the ship?

 

Must be horrible for them to watch

 

The communication on the ships needs to significantly improve as well by all accounts

 

There's something badly wrong at the moment with how this is all unfolding

 

 

 

 

Edited January 7, 2022 by Interestedcruisefan

[Victoria2]

2 hours ago, Megabear2 said:

So 4 months on with a major situation close on the horizon we should still consider these "discussions" to be dealing with a new situation? Surely the situation was new at the point the EU sailing rules were drawn up and the existence of an insurance issue brought to their attention (and acknowledged by them as correct) should by now be resolved or at the very least made clear to their customers?

 

I hasten to add it isn't just a Cunard/P&O/Carnival UK one it one for the cruise industry as a whole.  If something doesn't happen before European sailings start in earnest they could be accused of fiddling while Rome burns.

Yes. It's 'new'.

Wheels often grind very slowly. They shouldn't in our much wanted return to cruising, but the fact is, they do and given the fluid situation, I would be amazed if all parts of the jigsaw were a approximate fit, never mind perfect. The cynic in me expects nothing and am not and will not be at all surprised when my low expectations seem to be and might be  met in spades.

[Megabear2]

8 minutes ago, Victoria2 said:

Yes. It's 'new'.

Wheels often grind very slowly. They shouldn't in our much wanted return to cruising, but the fact is, they do and given the fluid situation, I would be amazed if all parts of the jigsaw were a approximate fit, never mind perfect. The cynic in me expects nothing and am not and will not be at all surprised when my low expectations seem to be and might be  met in spades.

Fluid, I agree, but on new I'm afraid we will have to disagree.  All over CC boards there are stories appearing about this situation with all cruise lines. Some have happy endings some don't.  Having apparently had high level meetings in Carnival House on the insurance issue months ago Cunard/P&O should have been involved with the insurance companies sorting this out. Most people have stated they would happily pay a higher premium for this cover.

 

The truth appears sadly to be that the cruise lines are falling off their tightrope as cases increase and are now trying to shift responsibility to the very people who drew their attention to the loophole in the first place. 

 

To date no one has hit the media with this issue but if isn't sorted soon the lurid stories will become a nightmare for cruise companies seeking to convince new young family cruisers on to their megaships.  Cunard may not have one yet, but there's a great big offering on the horizon which old Cunarders like you and I may not like.

[Victoria2]

8 minutes ago, Megabear2 said:

Fluid, I agree, but on new I'm afraid we will have to disagree. 

I am quite happy to do so

 

All over CC boards there are stories appearing about this situation with all cruise lines. Some have happy endings some don't.  Having apparently had high level meetings in Carnival House on the insurance issue months ago Cunard/P&O should have been involved with the insurance companies sorting this out.

Apparently?

Most people have stated they would happily pay a higher premium for this cover.

Not having spoken to anyone about it, I don't know if folk would be happy, or not. We would be but that's just us.

 

8 minutes ago, Megabear2 said:

 

The truth appears sadly to be that the cruise lines are falling off their tightrope as cases increase and are now trying to shift responsibility to the very people who drew their attention to the loophole in the first place. 

 

 

To date no one has hit the media with this issue but if isn't sorted soon the lurid stories will become a nightmare for cruise companies seeking to convince new young family cruisers on to their megaships. 

Ah, well, you wouldn't get me on one of those mega ships, family or couple, if you paid me in gold and diamonds. so I have no experiences  to draw on and it's definitely up to the punter to be aware, there.

Cunard may not have one yet, but there's a great big offering on the horizon which old Cunarders like you and I may not like.

Interesting, I wonder what that could be. I await with interest how my experience on QE and QV might change.

As a very ordinary citizen, I know nothing about the machinations which go on behind any scenes. I will wait and see what transpires.

We will have to agree to disagree as far as personal responsibility is concerned. I read the online  literature at every date change. I read  the FAQ and I know our our travel insurance t&cs back to front and have even telephoned the bank to clarify a couple of points when we were going on the 7th August QE Seacation, which was cancelled, in order to question the amount insured on 'home turf'.

 

Maybe it's time everybody  did the same. Our insurance used to cover pandemics and natural disasters, which not all policies did. It doesn't now. The world has changed. It might be  time consuming as protocols can be changed last minute by outside agencies over which the cruise lines have no control but the info is there. Bare bones possibly  but the warning is there and no longer can we book, insure and forget about it. We need to ensure we're going to  be OK and if we can't rely in that to our satisfaction, then it's questionable if we should be going on a cruise.

I do feel for those who want to cancel but can't as they will lose their money but I also feel for the businesses which are offering the best solution they can for their clients, without falling in their own swords.

Catch 22, for all parties.

.

 

[Megabear2]

1 hour ago, Victoria2 said:

 

As a very ordinary citizen, I know nothing about the machinations which go on behind any scenes. I will wait and see what transpires.

We will have to agree to disagree as far as personal responsibility is concerned. I read the online  literature at every date change. I read  the FAQ and I know our our travel insurance t&cs back to front and have even telephoned the bank to clarify a couple of points when we were going on the 7th August QE Seacation, which was cancelled, in order to question the amount insured on 'home turf'.

 

Maybe it's time everybody  did the same. Our insurance used to cover pandemics and natural disasters, which not all policies did. It doesn't now. The world has changed. It might be  time consuming as protocols can be changed last minute by outside agencies over which the cruise lines have no control but the info is there. Bare bones possibly  but the warning is there and no longer can we book, insure and forget about it. We need to ensure we're going to  be OK and if we can't rely in that to our satisfaction, then it's questionable if we should be going on a cruise.

I do feel for those who want to cancel but can't as they will lose their money but I also feel for the businesses which are offering the best solution they can for their clients, without falling in their own swords.

Catch 22, for all parties.

.

 

In my case you are preaching to the converted.  I have never not read anything legal or contractual other than in the finest detail.  That is how I picked up the quarantine issue before the word seacation even surfaced.  Unfortunately as the rumpus that ensued when I first highlighted the possible problem proved the vast majority do not.

 

I am glad you are on the ball and consider yourself well protected.  My actions and "campaign" for want of a better word were aimed to assist passengers and cruise lines.  Over the months I have tried to convince many others that taking the Simon Calder/Martin Lewis/bad press route is not the solution but that proper, constructive discussion on the situation with the cruise lines and insurance companies is the correct way to go.  

 

As other posters have stated in this link I at least was proactive enough to achieve the result we currently have.

 

On that note I will end my discussions on this topic with you. Hope you have a wonderful cruise when you do travel.

Edited January 7, 2022 by Megabear2

[Victoria2]

45 minutes ago, Megabear2 said:

In my case you are preaching to the converted.  I have never not read anything legal or contractual other than in the finest detail.  That is how I picked up the quarantine issue before the word seacation even surfaced.  Unfortunately as the rumpus that ensued when I first highlighted the possible problem proved the vast majority do not.

 

I am glad you are on the ball and consider yourself well protected.  My actions and "campaign" for want of a better word were aimed to assist passengers and cruise lines.  Over the months I have tried to convince many others that taking the Simon Calder/Martin Lewis/bad press route is not the solution but that proper, constructive discussion on the situation with the cruise lines and insurance companies is the correct way to go.  

 

As other posters have stated in this link I at least was proactive enough to achieve the result we currently have.

 

On that note I will end my discussions on this topic with you. Hope you have a wonderful cruise when you do travel.

We're not well protected, we're informed. There is a difference.

 

As I have previously said, there are positives in highlighting the negatives involved in cruising at the moment and anything which makes those who are unaware of the pitfalls involved in taking a cruise during this pandemic at the moment more aware, has  to be praised and although I still think personal responsibility  should be paramount,  I applaud  your campaign in adding to the information 'out there'. 🙂

[bbtablet]

Thinking forward to a scenario where the cruise lines have inserted information to make it very clear to future bookers that those who despite not testing positive but who are nontheless required to disembark into overseas quarantine anyway through having had previous close contact with a positive person, or who wish to disembark to stay with "positive" members of their group (husbands/wives/ etc), the natural consequence will be that people booking cruises in the future will want to buy insurance to cover "disembarked non-positive test passengers"' as an add-on.

 

If (and it is a very big if) the insurance companies decide to offer such cover in the future as a specific risk add-on to the current policies (which it is becoming clearer and clearer they are not wishing to cover in their current policies), they will need to make a commercial evaluation of the potential liability they are taking on, and fix the premium accordingly.

My feeling is that the extra premium will be set extremely high as the insurance companies have little history yet on which to base their expected liabilities and they will failsafe with premium setting.

I already pay over £1200 for insurance for my wife and me for a 28 day Caribbean cruise - I wonder how much it will become in the future to get the reassuring cover we will need as non-flyers?

Edited January 7, 2022 by bbtablet
English

[Megabear2]

31 minutes ago, bbtablet said:

Thinking forward to a scenario where the cruise lines have inserted information to make it very clear to future bookers that those who despite not testing positive but who are nontheless required to disembark into overseas quarantine anyway through having had previous close contact with a positive person, or who wish to disembark to stay with "positive" members of their group (husbands/wives/ etc), the natural consequence will be that people booking cruises in the future will want to buy insurance to cover "disembarked non-positive test passengers"' as an add-on.

 

If (and it is a very big if) the insurance companies decide to offer such cover in the future as a specific risk add-on to the current policies (which it is becoming clearer and clearer they are not wishing to cover in their current policies), they will need to make a commercial evaluation of the potential liability they are taking on, and fix the premium accordingly.

My feeling is that the extra premium will be set extremely high as the insurance companies have little history yet on which to base their expected liabilities and they will failsafe with premium setting.

I already pay over £1200 for insurance for my wife and me for a 28 day Caribbean cruise - I wonder how much it will become in the future to get the reassuring cover we will need as non-flyers?

You are much like us. My husband has a heart deficiency he was born with, no cure. An annual worldwide policy for him at 64 cost £1,400 which wasn't as bad as taking single trip policies. To ensure covid unloading cover I paid a further  £293 to Allianz on our bank insurance. We were advised we can't claim on both but depending on how he is needing to make a claim we can choose which one to use.  Belt and braces approach but will work until he is 70.  The Allianz insurance will not cover the heart problems but Avanti will.  Crazy world ...

 

Any add on will be dependent on the number of problems the cruise lines dump at the insurers' doors. Obviously all these illegible claims will be noted by the insurance brokers and if they pile up at the rate it seems they will then any weighting will be in proportion.  Spain is already an insurance "hotspot" due to the attitude they took a number of years ago on EHIC cards. No doubt that will also have an effect. I would guess that European insurance may start to cost as much as for US/Caribbean trips at least.

[Megabear2]

No one will be travelling well or badly if we don't sort out the problem because put simply the cruise lines won't survive if new cruisers won't book on them.

 

It doesn't matter if its a £50 deposit on a ferry cruise or a £100,000 Queen's Grill Suite - no passengers if the cruise lines cannot offer proper comfort will mean no cruises and ships in the scrapyard.  I'm sure none of us want that.

 

A wrong word in the wrong place can and does wreak havoc. Who's seen the headlines about Princess today having covid on board?  A non story in the whole thing but we're back to plague ships, deaths and petri dishes.

 

As people who love cruises we surely should all want the same thing, rich or poor.

Edited January 7, 2022 by Megabear2

[Underwatr]

51 minutes ago, bbtablet said:

Thinking forward to a scenario where the cruise lines have inserted information to make it very clear to future bookers that those who despite not testing positive but who are nontheless required to disembark into overseas quarantine anyway through having had previous close contact with a positive person, or who wish to disembark to stay with "positive" members of their group (husbands/wives/ etc), the natural consequence will be that people booking cruises in the future will want to buy insurance to cover "disembarked non-positive test passengers"' as an add-on.

 

If (and it is a very big if) the insurance companies decide to offer such cover in the future as a specific risk add-on to the current policies

 

I see you're in the UK. In the US, "quarantine" (of the insured or a traveling companion) is a specific coverage for trip cancellation or trip interruption on many comprehensive travel insurance policies. If it doesn't specifically exclude COVID then quarantine due to COVID would be covered.

[Megabear2]

19 minutes ago, kohl1957 said:

BTW, my British wife bought her insurance in the U.K. and quarantine was covered at a modest add-on and with an annual policy. 

Please tell us which company.  Cunard recommended insurer here in UK doesn't even cover it. 95% of insurance policies on sale won't cover Covid negative test quarantine.  All UK insurance companies cover quarantine for positive test quarantine even if only asymptomatic.  Assumedly when you purchased your wife's policy in the UK she asked the specific question "does your covid cover policy cover for offloading into quarantine if you test negative".   This is the million dollar question UK passengers have been putting to their insurers/underwriters not "does your covid cover policy cover quarantine ".  The answers are a million miles apart.

[Megabear2]

50 minutes ago, Underwatr said:

 

I see you're in the UK. In the US, "quarantine" (of the insured or a traveling companion) is a specific coverage for trip cancellation or trip interruption on many comprehensive travel insurance policies. If it doesn't specifically exclude COVID then quarantine due to COVID would be covered.

Yes, I read up on some US policies a friend in Palm Beach kindly sent me so am aware that they are available.  They are virtually non existent in UK and Europe and covid insurance of any kind is not available on some including the UK Post Office who actually sold one of the most popular ones on the market.

 

Cover for any covid related issues only crept into the wider market around July last year. There were absolutely no companies offering cruise cover of any kind from March 2020 and only 5he advent of UK seacations reopened the cruise insurance market.  The terms of UK policies have always not covered any declared pandemics.  You have to buy many add ons for things like volcanic eruptions etc.

 

There is a huge claims avoidance market in the UK and thousands fall into the trap every year of having purchased the wrong policy often because they don't understand what they are buying or just go 9n price comparison sites and purchase the cheapest offered.

[Megabear2]

I'm with you when we discuss Interruption insurance. 

 

This is also the case with UK policies, there would be payment of sorts on a daily pro rata basis depending on how long you are quarantined for. I gave an example further up but for simplicity set out how a UK Interruption policy would work.  I appreciate I'm on a Cunard board where many thousands are spent on accommodation but I'm using basic figures here!

 

Most UK policies have a ceiling limit of £5,000 or £10,000 cover for cancellation, although at a cost you can add extra cover but it gets pretty expensive, they are pretty standard and not aimed at high end holidays with a large tag being for the general public.  Unless you fully understand insurance policies basic Joe Public tends to think that they will get £5,000 or £10,000 if their trip is interrupted, that is not the case and frequently comes as a huge surprise if a claim has to be made under this clause.

 

So example:

 

Mr X a 45 year old man buys a policy with a £5,000 limit per person for himself and Mrs X aged 42 to cover them for a cruise of 14 nights on the mv Boatie McBoatface.  The trip is costing him £7,000 in total, ie £3,500 each.  His Interruption insurance starts when he boards and the insurance company values it at £250 per night which then starts reducing his Interruption insurance daily by that amount, ie on day 2 his cover has reduced to £3,000, day 3 £2,750 and so on.  

 

On day 9 Mrs X is told she has tested positive for covid and she and Mr X will go into quarantine ashore as per Spanish law.  At this point their Interruption cover is now valued at £1,250 each and that is the sum due to be paid out. They are removed from the ship and placed in a hotel facility the next day.

 

In this scenario Mr and Mrs X will have quarantine bills of around £4,000 each almost immediately, their Interruption insurance (or quarantine insurance as you would apparently call it) will pay £1,250 pp of that leaving a shortfall of £2,750 each. The £1,250 although due would not pay immediately in the same way a medical claim would, ie the insurer on being informed you are sick deals direct with the local doctors etc for a medical claim leaving the unwell person to recover without need to be involved in who pays whilst the Interruption claim would need to be claimed on return home so no immediate payment available to assist with costs.

 

Meantime Mr X remains with a negative test but under Spanish law has 10 days in quarantine as well because he is a close contact. Mrs X having a positive covid test has her medical insurance kick in and is therefore fully covered under the covid cover McBoatface Cruises had insisted she purchase to sail with them. As she's covered she gets help from the insurance company and has no worries.  Mr X however with no positive test is on his own, despite the joint policy.  He has to pay upfront for his enforced incarceration, his food, daily tests etc. and is not entitled to any help or assistance as the insurance company has no further liability. He also has to work out how to get home and book and purchase a flight. Him and his wife will most likely not travel together as the insurer will organise her flight and he can't guarantee he will be able to buy a seat on it that day.

 

Mr and Mrs X have to test negative after 10 days to leave Spanish quarantine, on day 10 despite being apparently fit Mrs X returns another positive test.  This means under Spanish law and international airline rules she has to remain in her quarantine accommodation for a further 10 days.  She is now into her second set of £4,000 with a running total of  £8,000.This of course continues to be covered by her medical covid policy. She may well test positive again at the end of her second 10 days - one third of covid patients can return a positive test up to 90 days after illness which is the reason exemption certificates need to be carried by recovered patients.

 

Mr X now has a quandary: he loves his wife and doesn't wish to leave her alone.  However he is already £2,750 down because his insurance doesn't cover him, he's had enforced leave from work to be quarantined and his boss is getting angry.  What should he do ?

 

I'm genuinely interested in your answers, not as wealthy Queen's Grill retired travellers but as basic Joe the truck driver or Jean the teacher.

 

 

 

Edited January 8, 2022 by Megabear2

[Victoria2]

I'm not clued up as far as other policies are concerned but our insurance which up until March 19th '21 was just about the best policy on the market covered every single problem which might occur apart from a revolution.

Post 'march '21, we have no pandemic cover and some specific exclusions, one of which could prove expensive. and that is should my husband be disembarked in say Spain for a positive Covid test, he would be covered for all things medical including repatriation, travel interruption etc etc etc bit crucially,  I would not be covered for the same if I was negative on the same disembarkation.

 

Now two of our '21 cruises come under the pre March 19th '21 [bookings were post that date but were transfers from covered cruises- it's complicated] insurance cover so we will have total Covid cover for the pair of us, even if one positive and one negative. Two of our cruises were transfers from post M\arch '21 bookings so come under the new  'rules' and they are the ones which could prove very expensive under the same scenario and that, is one of the problems at the moment.

 

The only cover I could find which would meet this situation has age exclusions so that was out before I could get a quote.

 

Our cover does have a clause which allows 'a companion to accompany the ill person but the area is 'grey'. However, I would fight and claim under that clause.

 

There are reports of travellers racking up the bills on compulsory disembarkation and that has to be sorted in order for the word 'total' to be inserted into Cunard's 'sail with confidence', as it does for any travelling situation.

 

So in answer to your last paragraph, we are covered for the issues you raise, but Covid has hit a nerve for our insurers and I think, most UK insurers at the moment.

[lissie]

1 hour ago, Megabear2 said:

 

Mr X now has a quandary: he loves his wife and doesn't wish to leave her alone.  However he is already £2,750 down because his insurance doesn't cover him, he's had enforced leave from work to be quarantined and his boss is getting angry.  What should he do ?

 

I'm genuinely interested in your answers, not as wealthy Queen's Grill retired travellers but as basic Joe the truck driver or Jean the teacher.

 

 

 

Is his wife still in the hotel ie she's not very ill ? Or even asymptomatic? He should go home and make sure he facetimes her at least 2x a day. She should tell him to go.  Just because you love someone doesn't mean you have to be joined at the hip 24/7 

 

If she is ill enough to have been moved to a hospital that's a whole lot different - but would imagine in that situation  the insurance would cover her needing a  "support person" ? 

Edited January 8, 2022 by lissie

[Victoria2]

I forgot, we're in yet another new year so March '21 should read March '20. Never mind what day is it...what year!!!!

 

This confirms it. I am not going to let another year go by without returning to the ocean as Sept'19 was our last time at sea.  I will just keep all possible digits crossed this damn virus is downgraded. 

[Megabear2]

1 hour ago, lissie said:

Is his wife still in the hotel ie she's not very ill ? Or even asymptomatic? He should go home and make sure he facetimes her at least 2x a day. She should tell him to go.  Just because you love someone doesn't mean you have to be joined at the hip 24/7 

 

If she is ill enough to have been moved to a hospital that's a whole lot different - but would imagine in that situation  the insurance would cover her needing a  "support person" ? 

She is still in quarantine, not hospital but with some sniffles etc. but positive test leaves her there for the foreseeable. Mr X returns home because he now has a credit card debt and needs to work to keep his income.  Unexpectedly Mrs X takes a sudden turn for the worse and is hospitalised. 

Mr X urgently needs to return to Spain be with her and he now has to book covid tests, a flight, ground transportation, accommodation and organise kennels for their dog.  He still has to use his credit card for these things ...

 

Should he have taken the risk of going home?

 

[You thought the same as me on support person but according to all the insurance companies in the UK by it being covid his wife is in isolation and he cannot help her or assist and would himself be in quarantine so the clause would not apply.  On your own in the cold insurance world of covid literally does mean o your own.]

 

I checked regarding a disabled person who is dependent on their support.  The insurance company would consider a support person pay out in this case but they would need to be on a joint policy together to trigger this clause.

 

On top of that the Spanish authorities decide if you quarantine together in one place. In Tenerife over Christmas groups found themselves in different hotels.  Apparently it is Spanish policy to put family groups together in one room. A contact of mine tested negative, her husband positive and they were put in one room with a double bed as a family group.  The inevitable happened: on day 6 of quarantine she tested positive and the 10 day clock reset and they then faced 16 days in the room.  It was a sealed room with no opening windows so no fresh air to let the virus out just some inferior air conditioning.

 

Mr X is not made up. He's someone in the English Midlands who my travel agent had to deal with in September, not on Cunard or the sister companies but a well regarded UK mid range cruise line.

 

Edited January 8, 2022 by Megabear2

[molecrochip]

I think one of the most contentious points is that the Cunard text does not explicitly say that the traveller will be liable for the costs if the insurer won’t pay. Thus implying the cruise line will pay.

 

@Megabear2 @Interestedcruisefan  If I was aware of a family friend who was offloaded by Spanish authorities and were not covered by their insurance for the negative parter, I would like to think the cruise line had assisted. If this had happened and the cruise line had dipped into their own pockets, when they believe contractually they don’t have to, it would almost certainly be and a case by case basis snd subject to a NDA to avoid media/social media coverage. Therefore, I couldn’t tell you, even if I categorically knew.

 

I can tell you that the care team in Cunard/P&O are at full stretch and additional staff from across the organisation are being trained in the necessary protocols to assist affected customers (and crew).

[Megabear2]

Hi Molecrochip, nice to speak with you!  Yes, you and I are aware Cunard/P&O aren't leaving anyone out of pocket and obviously long may this last but it isn't written in stone as we also know.

 

However this thread started when the new Cunard terms were published and a couple of British people mentioned the fact that you cannot cover for offloading of negative testers.  Reading the thread quite a few believe that not to be the case and think the cruise line doesn't have a need to help.

 

Things have expanded somewhat as we have heard a New Zealand correspondent who cannot insure for covid either.

 

Incidentally Mr X is real, nothing to do with Cunard/P&O but had the problem with a highly reputable line and popular insurance company.

 

I find it frustrating after all that has been researched and which the CEO office has accepted to be correct and adopted a policy for, that I and a few others on these boards are being told we are wrong and the situation does not exist.

 

Hopefully you have gathered from me over the months that I have the best interest of both cruise lines and passengers at heart and want neither to have problems.  

 

My problem is still where it lay in the first place: the insurance companies and without going "nationwide" in the press or whatever we aren't going to get it sorted without pressure from the cruise lines and travel industry. The same problem exists about quarantine worldwide for holidaymakers just not so far up the scale of risk.

[exlondoner]

If you are fully vaccinated and go to Spain from the UK by ferry or plane, there are no pre-entry Covid tests that I can see. So Mr. X would be spared those. It is odd that the procedure is so different if you arrive by cruise ship. What is the difference between Southampton to Vigo by Cunard and Portsmouth to Bilbao by ferry?

[Underwatr]

3 hours ago, Megabear2 said:

which then starts reducing his Interruption insurance daily by that amount, ie on day 2 his cover has reduced to £3,000, day 3 £2,750 and so on.  

From experience, that's definitely not how interruption works in the US (just bringing this up as another US-UK difference in travel insurance).

 

If you have to leave the ship after six nights into a 12-night, $7000 cruise, your compensation for unused prepaid accommodations would be 6/12 of the cruise value, or $3500. Typically interruption coverage is 150% of the specified trip cost (e.g., what you told them the trip cost when you bought the insurance, typically omitting items that can be canceled and refunded) so even if the interruption occurred very early and nearly all the trip cost is refunded there's still coverage available for additional expenses such as lodging and meals due to the interruption, and transportation to return home (or to rejoin the trip if that's feasible) from where the trip is interrupted.

The total interruption coverage remains available until you return home** without daily diminution (there is no clause in the coverage documents which reduces total coverage over time), but the insurer's exposure (things you could potentially claim) goes down as the trip progresses.

 

* I'm afraid I can't speak to the cost of required quarantine  vs. cancelation/interruption coverage limits. I believe it's still limited to trip cost for cancelation (an adverse event before the start of the trip) of 150% of trip cost for interruption (an adverse event after the start of the trip) for all expenses incurred.

 

**The clause that says your trip ends when you return home seems obvious but in my case I accompanied my sick wife home with her emergency medical transport, and two days later went to Brooklyn to retrieve the car and the luggage that we had to leave behind on the ship. Although those were legitimately incurred expenses due to the trip interruption, my claim that I was "rejoining my trip" on the ship's return to Brooklyn was denied because I had returned home in the interim period, thus terminating my trip coverage.

 

Edited January 8, 2022 by Underwatr