Getting last minute refund

I always read Fox News due to their conservative view. Today they have a headline story about a family who did not purchase cruise insurance and at the last minute their son had to go in for cancer surgery. The article makes the cruise line seem like the bad guy. What is your opinion?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/27/cruise-line-refuses-to-re-book-family-vacation-after-5-year-old-diagnosed-with/

I always read Fox News due to their conservative view. Today they have a headline story about a family who did not purchase cruise insurance and at the last minute their son had to go in for cancer surgery. The article makes the cruise line seem like the bad guy. What is your opinion?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/27/cruise-line-refuses-to-re-book-family-vacation-after-5-year-old-diagnosed-with/

Even though it seems harsh, I think the cruise line was right.

If people could cancel and rebook without penalty just two weeks before cruise for cancer, surgery, heart attacks, death, etc no one would buy insurance. That is what insurance is for.

It would not be fair to those who do pay for insurance.

While I feel very sorry for this young lad and hope he recovers; I'm afraid that I agree with the cruise line. If you book a holiday and you can't afford to loose that money, then you need to book insurance too. If the cruise line relented and gave them back their money, then everyone would be lining up to cancel at the last minute and get refunds. Sorry but I feel that travel insurance is an important additional cost to trips and I never travel without it.

Any experienced traveler will see through the spin and know that if you don't engage insurance you risk losing all your money.

I guess Fox found this particular case newsworthy mainly as an opportunity for News Corp to take a few potshots at Viacom (parent co of Nickelodeon).

I may seem hard, but this is why one should take out travel insurance. We have an annual policy now, but haven't always. In the past we would take out insurance for big trips like this, but perhaps take the risk of a hit on smaller (less expensive) vacations. If I couldn't travel because of family illness and hadn't insured I would be cross - but with myself, not with the cruise line.

I may be flamed ...

That's exactly the way I read it. The story has us believe that a greedy, obstinate corporation won't show any compassion for a sick little boy and his family.

But I side with NCL. The family chose not to buy trip insurance but this happened. They took their chance and lost. NCL held that cabin as long as they were booked and with only five days before sailing it is very unlikely anyone else could have booked in their place.

What would the story had been had they let their fire insurance lapse and their house burned down? Evil insurance company won't help a family with a desperately sick child?

We live in a world where nobody has to be responsible for their decisions.

I always read Fox News due to their conservative view. Today they have a headline story about a family who did not purchase cruise insurance and at the last minute their son had to go in for cancer surgery. The article makes the cruise line seem like the bad guy. What is your opinion?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/27/cruise-line-refuses-to-re-book-family-vacation-after-5-year-old-diagnosed-with/

My opinion, we always get travel insurance. I believe that most cruise lines will offer it (at least all the ones we've dealt with thus far have) when you make the reservation.

As with most things in life, if you don't read the "rules" when you commit to a contract (and that's what you're doing when you book a cruise), it's on you if there's a problem later.

If someone doesn't get insurance for their car, and then their kid has an accident, are they going to ask for repayment for damages? I don't think so. It's the same. I book a cruise, and I don't get insurance to cover cancellations, then I break a leg (or whatever) and can't go on the cruise, I'm not going to say to the cruise lines "well, I'm in great pain now, and I can't go on the cruise, I didn't get insurance for "just in case" but, give me my money back anyway."

I'm sorry that family has life-changing issues going on right now, but it was their call.

Interestingly I appear to be in the majority, not, as I feared, the minority.

However, many people here are experienced travellers and truly understand the need for, and benefits of, travel insurance, and the risks of going without.

they are trolling for a free cruse, plain and simple. act all morally outraged and pull the sympathy factor:( aww my poor wittle son has cancer..waaahhh) and gee, guess what., some other company looking to get good press offers them a free cruise.

no personal responsibility at all, but man are they quick to garner sympathy when it goes belly up due to their lack of foresight/planning.

NCL has done nothing wrong, morally or legally.

We had to cancel a cruise about 3 weeks before sailing. My wife was diagnosed with cancer in February. Fortunately we had insurance.

If the cruise lines start giving a future cruise to people in this position, then why should we bother buying the insurance?

I agree with the majority here that the people should have bought insurance. However in this case I do think NCL could let them change to a future date instead of refunding their money.

I agree with the majority here that the people should have bought insurance. However in this case I do think NCL could let them change to a future date instead of refunding their money.

Why? And NCL not have a paying passenger in that cabin on the later cruise? Because it's a child and because it's cancer? Would they be out of luck if it was Granny? Or if the kid awoke with the flu?

Why is this case unique to all of the other calamities that befall passengers who are out of money because they could not sail? Because they got a major news outlet to elicit sympathy?

The parents made a decision not to buy trip insurance. Heads (money saved by not buying insurance) they win, tails (blackmail in press) NCL loses.

How many people cancel a cruise after a cancer diagnoses? The guy at my wife's oncologist was very familiar with the form I brought him.

I'll be praying this for child's recovery but his parents - just a lack of personal responsibility. Then to try to public shame the cruise line - totally uncalled for. I hear that Celebrity has given them a free cruise but I have no proof of that. If they did - shame on them - we purchase insurance for a reason just such as this. I hate to sound heartless but they get no sympathy from me. :(

Seems to be unanimous, so far, among us.

I agree none of us would buy trip cancellation insurance if we thought the cruise line would not hold us to the policy they have set.

Very sorry about the young fellow but NCL owes them nothing. IMO

Too bad Fox News has no way to comment on the article.

Too bad Fox News has no way to comment on the article.

They do - just scroll to the bottom of that page. The story has about 1800 "likes" but among the posted comments the vast majority blame the family for not buying trip insurance and that NCL doesn't owe them anything.

There are however some who rightly or wrongly believe that this family should get special consideration. Others think that cruise lines operate in a "shameful manner" to have cancellation policies like this. One comment stated that NCL lost a "goldern opportunity" to have a feel-good story flood them with reservations. Quite to the contrary. If NCL relented the general public would believe that they did so only out of public shame. But they would be flooded with demands from past passengers for adjustments because they could not sail for one reason or another.

I am in great sympathy for the pain and suffering of this family and their son. But, honestly, the last thing from my mind would be the cruise cost if this happened to our child. NCL followed their policy and everyone knows that trip insurance is a necessity when planning a cruise. We had to cancel a cruise when I found out I had cancer and would be undergoing surgery, radiation and chemo. We had insurance. Later, we rebooked to Alaska and had a trip of a lifetime. Thankfully, five years later, I am now cancer free. If we didn't have insurance for the trip we cancelled, I would have taken it in stride, Sh.. happens.

A few years ago, two weeks before I was to leave for a cruise to Alaska, I fell and broke my leg in three places and tore three ligaments around my ankle. I didn't have insurance - I lost everything. I didn't complain to anyone, I just sucked it up; a very expensive lesson learned.

Since then I've always gotten travel insurance, and as my health isn't the greatest I also get Medjet Assist to get me to a local hospital in the event of a health issue while on vacation.

Of course my problem wasn't nearly the level of this family's, and I think they were in the wrong.

I always read Fox News due to their conservative view. Today they have a headline story about a family who did not purchase cruise insurance and at the last minute their son had to go in for cancer surgery. The article makes the cruise line seem like the bad guy. What is your opinion?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/27/cruise-line-refuses-to-re-book-family-vacation-after-5-year-old-diagnosed-with/

That is what insurance is for

My mum was diagnosed terminal final stage cancer 3 days before 6 months of cruising

Refunds came only as listed in conditions for cancellations plus my insurance covered the rest

They should have had insurance

Just

Like people who have a house destroyed by fire with no insurance

They took the risk

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

In the article it says, "She [the boy's mother] also said she would advise other parents planning a family cruise to take out traveler’s insurance or maybe choose a different company."

I think most (all?) cruise lines have the same policy and would have acted in the same way.

Many people think that travel insurance is only for the old. I have seen many posts on CC of people saying they were young and in good health so they did not need travel insurance. This is a sad example of why that is not true.

We used to take the risk and cruise without insurance. I figured that we could afford to lose the money if something happened. But then we learned the true value of insurance is not getting our money back if we can't go. It's the amount that the insurance pays if something happens to one of us on the cruise. My mother-in-law had to be hospitalized in Greece a couple of days into a Mediterranean cruise. The insurance covered her hospital bill, my father-in-law's hotel room, the change in flights after she was well enough to travel (including hiring a student nurse to accompany her on the flights), and paid to reimburse them for the portion of the cruise they missed.

If you purchase travel insurance the insurance company is responsible for the risk associated with a cancelled cruise. If you don't purchase travel insurance then you are responsible for the risk associated with a cancelled cruise. The choice is yours. In neither case is the cruiseline responsible for the cancelled cruise, nor should they be. There are so many "special" cases such as this out there. If the cruiselines were to give in to everyone then they would be irresponsible to their stockholders. This is the very reason there is travel insurance.

The problem with today's society is people do not want to be held responsible for the choices they make. They want someone else to be responsible for them when things go bad and they want all the responsibility when things are good. That is a shame. While I have empathy for the family and the suffering they are going through, I do not agree that the cruiseline should be held responsible for their decision not to get insurance.

FWIW I started purchasing travel insurance after our 3rd cruise that had a lot of close calls on things that could have caused a need for insurance if the timing were just a little different. It was a wake up call for me and we were lucky on the timing of things that happened. We purchased insurance for every cruise after that and ended up using it when DGM passed away the day before one of our scheduled cruises.

This was a wake up call for that family....unfortunately their timing wasn't so lucky and they lost the value of their cruise due to their decision not to purchase insurance for that trip. A hard lesson to learn...but it was their lesson to learn, not the cruiselines.

Why? And NCL not have a paying passenger in that cabin on the later cruise? Because it's a child and because it's cancer? Would they be out of luck if it was Granny? Or if the kid awoke with the flu?

 

Why is this case unique to all of the other calamities that befall passengers who are out of money because they could not sail? Because they got a major news outlet to elicit sympathy?

 

The parents made a decision not to buy trip insurance. Heads (money saved by not buying insurance) they win, tails (blackmail in press) NCL loses.

Well......I suppose I feel this way because I have a son with cancer.

That being said I always get travel insurance.

I don't know the right answer about what the cruise line should do. I just hope the child gets better.

Any experienced traveler will see through the spin and know that if you don't engage insurance you risk losing all your money.

I guess Fox found this particular case newsworthy mainly as an opportunity for News Corp to take a few potshots at Viacom (parent co of Nickelodeon).

You nailed it. Faux News otherwise adheres to the ideal of "personal responsibility" ad absurdum.