Troubles on Norwegian Sun

[billie5]

I believe the OP said they would not pay because of his/her use of alcohol and I quote what he said: The travel insurance being sold by the insurance company used by Norwegian states that if ANY alchol is involved, the policy does not cover the accident. And many of us were just agreeing with what the OP said. If you disagree with the comments, then you need to take it up with the OP....

 

Goodness gracious, I am not going to take it up with the OP. He has been through more than enough (and I thoroughly agree that NCL should have waived its time limit on repayment claims, given his extreme disability). However, you can agree with the OP all you want, but we know, thanks to Weltek, that the policy does not disallow ANY alcohol, but just in cases it leads to a contributing cause. And while Punkin is correct that such a clause has certainly a subjective component, so typically do most contracts. That is why we use juries and not scientists (or perhaps linguists?).

[NLH Arizona]

Goodness gracious, I am not going to take it up with the OP. He has been through more than enough (and I thoroughly agree that NCL should have waived its time limit on repayment claims, given his extreme disability). However, you can agree with the OP all you want, but we know, thanks to Weltek, that the policy does not disallow ANY alcohol, but just in cases it leads to a contributing cause. And while Punkin is correct that such a clause has certainly a subjective component, so typically do most contracts. That is why we use juries and not scientists (or perhaps linguists?).

Goodness gracious, the OP clearly said that they had a couple of drinks, which I would not call excessive or being intoxicated, but the insurance company wouldn't pay, which by the way, the lawyer they contacted agreed with the insurance company. BTW, NCL obviously knows to bring up the subject if drinking was involved.

 

While I was in the Mexican hospital, paralyzed in my arms and from the chest on down, there was contact with the NCL representative. This conversation about what had happened brought up in details if drinking had been involved. We told him we had a couple of drinks during the excursion. The next day we found out the travel insurance would not cover any of our expenses due to my drinking.

 

I didn't read anywhere (please show me what I missed) where a time limit was involved in the non-payment of the OP's claim, only that they would not pay because there was alcohol was involved.

If an insurance company makes an exception for one policy holder, they wouldn't they have to make that same exception for all? Why would one policy holder be more important than another?

[Single Cruiser]

I would imagine most people on holiday on a cruise will have a drink or three each day. The key point is that if it was a contributing factor.

 

If you have had a couple of glasses of wine with dinner but then an hour later slip on the stairs and break an ankle is the wine an hour earlier deemed a contributing factor or an accident.

 

If you are drunk and staggering around and stumble into a post or off an elevated path/wall is a different state.

 

If when making an insurance claim you say "I had more drinks than I'm used to or I was on a Rum boat shore excursion and tripped" versus "I tripped walking back to my cabin after dinner" .

 

 

I take out a specialist (and expensive) annual insurance but know that it covers "adventure type activities", some basic ones wouldn't even cover you on a ships climbing wall or rope course. But even with this it's still personal responsibility to avoid putting yourself at risk..

[punkincc]

Goodness gracious, I am not going to take it up with the OP. He has been through more than enough (and I thoroughly agree that NCL should have waived its time limit on repayment claims, given his extreme disability). However, you can agree with the OP all you want, but we know, thanks to Weltek, that the policy does not disallow ANY alcohol, but just in cases it leads to a contributing cause. And while Punkin is correct that such a clause has certainly a subjective component, so typically do most contracts. That is why we use juries and not scientists (or perhaps linguists?).

 

And I ask again; when denied by the insurance company, perhaps wrongly citing the alcohol clause, who among us are going to hire attorneys and spend thousands on a case that could drag out for years. Very few indeed, and the insurance companies know this.

[SeaShark]

And I ask again; when denied by the insurance company, perhaps wrongly citing the alcohol clause, who among us are going to hire attorneys and spend thousands on a case that could drag out for years. Very few indeed, and the insurance companies know this.

 

Well, since you asked...

 

The OP is one among us who would (and did) hire an attorney. According to the OP, the attorney reviewed the incident and the insurance policy and told the OP there was no legal avenue of pursuit.

 

Isn't that enough?

 

 

FWIW...You don't always HAVE to go to an attorney. What you need is to read and understand the terms of what you are buying...you need to know what is and what is not covered. Most of the time people complaining about insurance companies are complaining because they want to be paid for something that their policy does not cover.

 

As the OP says...The best advice is to READ the policy.

[garycarla]

Welcome to Cruise Critic, OP. Luckily, you have recuperated now. Did anyone force you to drink? No, but you did. NCL is not at fault.

 

I think this is uncalled for.

 

If the OP overdid it or was totally abusing alcohol, that is one thing. Having a few drinks???

 

 

And, the insurance is NOT with NCL. It is with an insurance company.

[billie5]

If an insurance company makes an exception for one policy holder, they wouldn't they have to make that same exception for all? Why would one policy holder be more important than another?

Could not agree with you more. But exceptions does not seem to be the case here. I would think that you tell the insurance company you had "a couple of drinks," and any one of them would use the contributing-intoxicant clause. Not using it would probably be the exception. (And chances are the OP told them a lot more, as he did in his opening post)

 

And I ask again; when denied by the insurance company, perhaps wrongly citing the alcohol clause, who among us are going to hire attorneys and spend thousands on a case that could drag out for years. Very few indeed, and the insurance companies know this.

Perhaps that is the case in Indiana, but I guarantee it is not difficult in Virginia or California to find lawyers who would take personal injury cases like this (assuming it were winnable -- for example, if OP had claimed only one drink an hour earlier) on a contingency basis. No money to spend unless you win.

 

One should be aware that there is a risk to the insurance company itself (beyond losing a case) if they make a practice of denying legitimate claims.

[garycarla]

First of all let me make it clear I am not posting just to place blame or find fault on anyone, but only to educate and inform through my own experience....

 

Thanks for sharing and warning others.

 

Sadly, I did not read this whole post because it was long and hard to read.

[SeaShark]

So everyone...it looks like we've come full circle with this topic. :p

 

 

The bottom line here is "read first".*

 

 

That applies if you buying an insurance policy (cruise or otherwise) AND it also applies if you are commenting on a thread. You don't want to be caught in a situation that your policy doesn't cover, and you don't want to comment without full knowlege of the thread. ;)

 

 

 

*It's a version of the old "Look before you leap" strategy

[thistimeplease]

Did you have to pay the medical/hospital bills in Mexico "out of pocket".

 

Lesson learned....keep details to yourself.

 

 

I am grateful the OP didn't keep the details to himself as I have learned something I didn't know from his unfortunate experience. Good luck to the OP in the future and I'm glad to hear that you are on the mend.

[fergusonvt]

Glad the OP has recovered. I don't fault NCL in this. It was an unfortunate accident that could have happened to the OP in his own home under the same circumstances. I couldn't find where the OP said exactly how many drinks he had. I don't usually drink a lot of alcohol but I do know my limit. Could NCL have offered them more, maybe but in my opinion they weren't obligated to.

[cod]

I'm glad the op is better. What a nightmare!

 

As for insurance. We always buy TravelGuard and whenever I've printed out a copy of the coverage page, it's followed by a 10 page explanation.

If NCL isn't providing the same, then I would think it's because they don't want you to know too much about what you're buying...or not buying.

[weltek]

FWIW, I do think NCL or the insurance company they use could do a better job of providing a copy of the insurance documentation with applicable reservations. NCL posts it on their website and you have to search it out yourself. When we used them, I looked all over my reservation for an indication of where the policy documents were. I ended up having to use the search feature on the NCL website and eventually found it. I feel like I shouldn't have to go searching for the documentation if I'm paying for the service. Someone should email or hard copy send it.

[punkincc]

 

Perhaps that is the case in Indiana, but I guarantee it is not difficult in Virginia or California to find lawyers who would take personal injury cases like this (assuming it were winnable -- for example, if OP had claimed only one drink an hour earlier) on a contingency basis. No money to spend unless you win.

 

One should be aware that there is a risk to the insurance company itself (beyond losing a case) if they make a practice of denying legitimate claims.

 

The "contingency" cases taken by lawyers are usually those cases in which the person is suing for damages due to the negligence of the other party. The OP is not claiming he was injured due to the negligence of NCL or the excursion vendor. He was only asking for reimbursement for prepaid portions of his cruise, probably under $2,000 at most, what the insurance would have covered if they had not cited the alcohol clause. Now, the medical portion is still a question as the OP has not made it clear if other insurance covered this or it was out of pocket along with the $13,000 evacuation fee. But it would have to be a very sizable pot of money to entice a law firm to eat thousands in expenses in order to maybe win the case and award the OP a few thousand $.

 

IMO, the law firm he consulted looked at the facts, looked at the potential award money IF they won, and looked at the expense of taking this case to it's conclusion, probably very sizable, and told the OP they could not take his case. It does not mean they thought he did not have a case, just that they could not afford to take the case ( unless of course the OP was willing to pay their hourly fees for the next few years).

[Starry Eyes]

FWIW, I do think NCL or the insurance company they use could do a better job of providing a copy of the insurance documentation with applicable reservations. NCL posts it on their website and you have to search it out yourself. When we used them, I looked all over my reservation for an indication of where the policy documents were. I ended up having to use the search feature on the NCL website and eventually found it. I feel like I shouldn't have to go searching for the documentation if I'm paying for the service. Someone should email or hard copy send it.

 

If one uses a travel agent, the agent should be assisting if somebody want a copy of the policy but cannot find it or lacks computer access.

If one books by phone with a PCC, and one wants to read the policy, one would need to ask for help getting the policy. Somebody who books on line can probably find the policy.

 

The issue may be that many people do not read in advance all the stuff offered to them. Among others, that goes for user agreements, mortgage documents, cruise contracts and insurance policies. Many people only read them after the fact when they have a problem. And, even if they did read them it advance, somebody who rarely drinks might well read the intoxication clause and remain unfazed, thinking I barely drink and certainly not enough to be hurt while intoxicated. I am sad for the OP, yet relieved he is recovering. It must have been a very bad fall.

[Taxguy77]

It was not on the ship, it was on en excursion. All excursions, the cruise line just acts as an agent for the tour company.

[garycarla]

It was not on the ship, it was on en excursion. All excursions, the cruise line just acts as an agent for the tour company.

 

So true.

 

It was off the ship and had very little to do with NCL.

 

And, the insurance is NOT from NCL, but a third party.

[lolane1]

I am grateful the OP didn't keep the details to himself as I have learned something I didn't know from his unfortunate experience. Good luck to the OP in the future and I'm glad to hear that you are on the mend.

 

I interpreted this as the poster sharing the details of alcohol consumption with the NCL rep that interviewed him not in sharing details in the post.

[lolane1]

FWIW, I do think NCL or the insurance company they use could do a better job of providing a copy of the insurance documentation with applicable reservations. NCL posts it on their website and you have to search it out yourself. When we used them, I looked all over my reservation for an indication of where the policy documents were. I ended up having to use the search feature on the NCL website and eventually found it. I feel like I shouldn't have to go searching for the documentation if I'm paying for the service. Someone should email or hard copy send it.

 

There may be some legal ramifications to not providing a copy of the insurance outright to the purchaser. Maybe a class action against NCL would be in order. Seems like a deliberate attempt not to inform the purchaser.

[halos]

It is beneficial when posters report this stuff...Things I have learned here on CC over the years include: NOT purchasing air through the cruise line and getting my own insurance. I use the trip insurance web site that allows you to compare policies and it spells out what they cover.

[smeyer418]

There may be some legal ramifications to not providing a copy of the insurance outright to the purchaser. Maybe a class action against NCL would be in order. Seems like a deliberate attempt not to inform the purchaser.

really? they make it available on line. You can see it before you purchase if you want. Its readily available. any one who cares to see it can. The only issue is that if you are not computer savy, you need to ask for it and they will mail it to you.

seems like ignorance is more deliberate.

I think they did a survey once and out of 100 people only 3 had read the summary plan description from their employers health insurance.

[Markanddonna]

I download my insurance policies to my Kindle as documents and they are easily available. This is the year 2013 and most documentation is not a hard copy anymore, unless you want to print it out yourself.

[Starry Eyes]

really? they make it available on line. You can see it before you purchase if you want. Its readily available. any one who cares to see it can. The only issue is that if you are not computer savy, you need to ask for it and they will mail it to you.

seems like ignorance is more deliberate.

I think they did a survey once and out of 100 people only 3 had read the summary plan description from their employers health insurance.

 

Three percent reading the summary sounds about right. Fewer likely delve into details.

 

And doing so is hard. When one is well, one does know what ailment might befall them. So when reading and comparing plans, one does not know if they'd be better off with higher coverage for rehab or better coverage for transplants; better off with an extensive network of local care providers or better coverage for far away specialists (and which ones). It is all easier in hindsight, as with the OP's travel insurance.

[smeyer418]

The "contingency" cases taken by lawyers are usually those cases in which the person is suing for damages due to the negligence of the other party. The OP is not claiming he was injured due to the negligence of NCL or the excursion vendor. He was only asking for reimbursement for prepaid portions of his cruise, probably under $2,000 at most, what the insurance would have covered if they had not cited the alcohol clause. Now, the medical portion is still a question as the OP has not made it clear if other insurance covered this or it was out of pocket along with the $13,000 evacuation fee. But it would have to be a very sizable pot of money to entice a law firm to eat thousands in expenses in order to maybe win the case and award the OP a few thousand $.

 

IMO, the law firm he consulted looked at the facts, looked at the potential award money IF they won, and looked at the expense of taking this case to it's conclusion, probably very sizable, and told the OP they could not take his case. It does not mean they thought he did not have a case, just that they could not afford to take the case ( unless of course the OP was willing to pay their hourly fees for the next few years).

In most states, the improper denial of a claim is a tort, subjecting the insurance company to additional damages(and possible punitive damages as well). There are lawyers who specialize in this and do tale contingent fee cases. The fact that the evacuation fee alone was $13,500 plus would make the claim worthwhile for many such lawyers on a share fee basis or a contingent fee....He just didn't find the right one or the lawyer may have been convinced that he was more than a little tipsy...

[billie5]

told the OP they could not take his case. It does not mean they thought he did not have a case, just that they could not afford to take the case ( unless of course the OP was willing to pay their hourly fees for the next few years).

 

No, the OP said they told him "there was nothing (he) could do about the insurance." That is a lot stronger statement than that they did not want to take the case. I agree with smeyer, around here at least finding a lawyer would not have been so difficult --- if there were a viable case.