OCEANIA HELL: A reason to use another cruise line.

[njhorseman]

2 hours ago, Hlitner said:

Several years ago, while on the Grand Med cruise (Prinsendam) we changed course and went out of our way to come to the rescue of a sinking Portuguese fishing trawler (well off the Azores).  Our HAL ship (under Captain Halle Gundersen) took charge of the rescue (there were several other commercial ships in the area) and ultimately took all the stranded crew (they were in a large life raft) aboard. 

The  master of the HAL ship may be a great guy and HAL may be a great cruise line but in reality all the HAL captain did is obey international maritime law.

https://www.sealaw.com/maritime-law-cruise-ships-and-assistance-for-distressed-boaters/

 

"The IMO explicitly states this requirement in its International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea: “A master of a ship at sea, which is in a position to be able to provide assistance on receiving a signal from any source that persons are in distress at sea, is bound to proceed with all speed to their assistance.”

[Vertygo]

32 minutes ago, clo said:

Something that I had hoped would be brought up here. Medicare is only in effect within the US. So you're not on Medicare yet?

I am on Medicare, Kaiser’s Senior Advantage program, with world-wide emergency coverage.

[Bongomauka]

5 minutes ago, Vertygo said:

I am on Medicare, Kaiser’s Senior Advantage program, with world-wide emergency coverage.

So are we. Kaiser has stepped up and acknowledged they would pay. The holdup is Oceania/NCL Holdings which has failed to provide tangible assistance and has arguably hindered the process from moving forward resulting in the very real possibility that we will loose all three of our potential insurance coverage options.

[Flatbush Flyer]

20 hours ago, Bongomauka said:

If only that were true. Perhaps Oceania gave you that impression but please be disabused of that fallacy. May our trip through hell be a warning to you and you choose your cruise company wisely.

Actually, the USCG and equivalent services in most other first world countries do not charge for field rescues and transport to an initial facility capable of rendering emergency treatment and stabilization.

[clo]

11 minutes ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

Actually, the USCG and equivalent services in most other first world countries do not charge for field rescues and transport to an initial facility capable of rendering emergency treatment and stabilization.

I thought that's what I remembered so thanks.

[Flatbush Flyer]

17 minutes ago, Vertygo said:

I am on Medicare, Kaiser’s Senior Advantage program, with world-wide emergency coverage.

Technically, you are not on Medicare. Rather you have chosen a Medicare approved substitute offered by a private company.

 

From Medicare.gov:

Medicare Advantage (also known as Part C)

• Medicare Advantage is a Medicare-approved plan from a private company that offers an alternative to Original Medicare for your health and drug coverage. These “bundled” plans include Part A, Part B, and usually Part D.
• In most cases, you’ll need to use doctors who are in the plan’s 
  network.
• Plans may have lower out-of-pocket costs than Original Medicare.
• Plans may offer some extra benefits that Original Medicare doesn’t cover — like vision, hearing, and dental services.

[broberts]

1 hour ago, clo said:

Something that I had hoped would be brought up here. Medicare is only in effect within the US. So you're not on Medicare yet?

 

That is none of your business. Regardless, the question is irrelevant to the problem.

 

[Vertygo]

46 minutes ago, Bongomauka said:

So are we. Kaiser has stepped up and acknowledged they would pay. The holdup is Oceania/NCL Holdings which has failed to provide tangible assistance and has arguably hindered the process from moving forward resulting in the very real possibility that we will loose all three of our potential insurance coverage options.

I can just imagine the stress this is causing for you, but glad to know Kaiser’s willing to do their part. Now if only NCL would!

[Vertygo]

12 minutes ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

Technically, you are not on Medicare. Rather you have chosen a Medicare approved substitute offered by a private company.

Tell that to SSA, who’s deducting $ for Medicare premiums each month 😆 

Just semantics 

[clo]

43 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

That is none of your business. Regardless, the question is irrelevant to the problem.

 

I'm curious. I wouldn't be at all if ask who my insurance agent is. That's how they get their business.

[clo]

39 minutes ago, Vertygo said:

Tell that to SSA, who’s deducting $ for Medicare premiums each month 😆 

Just semantics 

Never thought about that. Our Medicare supplement is through USAA and our Pharmacy through CenterWell/Humana.

[advertisinglady27]

I have a question about this apparent whole mess. Did you or your partner sign any documents regarding treatment etc ? 
Last holiday I was in a very bad accident on a ship. The entire time they were stitching up the inside & outside of my leg & my screaming they were badgering me to sign their paperwork. I refused. I have not now or ever received a bill. I think it is because they had no paperwork signed by me for treatment however I don’t know & was not about to find out why. 

[TRLD]

8 hours ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

Good idea. Of course, OP might need to formally give HIPAA permission to the consulate to have access to medical records. And local congressman could certainly “grease the wheels.”

Not so much have the embassy access his records, just for them to give him the proper contact to find out payment status.

[TRLD]

4 hours ago, Hlitner said:

I am trying to get myself around the fact that the Portuguese Air Force billed for their services.  In 50 years of extensive cruising, we have never heard of any military body (be it the Coast Guard or other branches) bill for transportation from a cruise ship to land.  I wonder if this means the US Coast Guard should bill any rescue of Portuguese as a retaliatory measure.   Several years ago, while on the Grand Med cruise (Prinsendam) we changed course and went out of our way to come to the rescue of a sinking Portuguese fishing trawler (well off the Azores).  Our HAL ship (under Captain Halle Gundersen) took charge of the rescue (there were several other commercial ships in the area) and ultimately took all the stranded crew (they were in a large life raft) aboard.  Within a couple of hour a Portuguese Coast Guard helicopter flew out to our ship (from the Azores) and winched all of that crew off our deck.  You can be sure that HAL did not send a bill to Portugal.  

 

My question to the OP is "have you received an actual bill from NCL?"  If not, put them on notice (in writing) that need to produce a bill (along with proof they actually made a payment to Portugal) within X number of days.  Make it clear that if NCL does not produce such documentation you will consider the matter permanently closed.   In your situation I would get an attorney to write such a letter, but an alternative is to simply write such a letter yourself.

 

Hank

 

 

Different countries have different rules. Most I dependent of where the person is from. The US Coast Guard does not, but other countries do.

[ldubs]

3 hours ago, Bongomauka said:

Apparently they do. The cruise line’s third party insurance processor has indicated that we will be billed. Our insurance policies all expire in a couple of months. NCL has not supplied any documentation of payment or non payment in the last almost 3 months. We are at their mercy. 

 

OK, have you checked with your carrier to find out if the expiration date of your current policy will impact an existing open claim?  

Edited January 14 by ldubs

[Flatbush Flyer]

3 hours ago, TRLD said:

Different countries have different rules. Most I dependent of where the person is from. The US Coast Guard does not, but other countries do.

As aforementioned, most first world countries also would not charge for a shipboard Field Rescue. Medical Evacuation (by insurer definition) is not the same thing.

[Flatbush Flyer]

3 hours ago, TRLD said:

Not so much have the embassy access his records, just for them to give him the proper contact to find out payment status.

If OP hasn’t (for many months) managed to get the necessary records required by the insurer (which, in addition to the Air Force cost, might also include the reason why its assistance was needed, e.g., ICD-10 Codes), I’m betting a US embassy or consulate’s diplomatic connections would be far more efficacious in getting their communications the desired responses. And that means there would need to be a signed release somewhere in that stack of paper.

[Flatbush Flyer]

4 hours ago, Vertygo said:

Tell that to SSA, who’s deducting $ for Medicare premiums each month 😆 

Just semantics 

We pay the premiums for government-administered programs whether or not we use them and, as is often the case with healthcare and health (or other) insurance, “the devil is in the detail.”

Just look at all the misunderstanding about what exacting is “medical evacuation” and “pre-existing conditions” (both with different definitions in insurance vs healthcare). 

[Vallesan]

If I have read the situation correctly your insurance company is happy to pay your claim and the payment for the evacuation to whoever paid for it. ie. Portuguese Air Force or NCLH.

NCLH say they have paid. 
 

You need proof of payment by NCLH from them for your insurance company.

NCLH are unwilling/unable to provide you with that proof.

 

Your concern is that after your  insurance company has paid out your part of the claim, without paying for the evacuation, NCLH will then come to you at a later date and ask for a payment, from you, to cover the evacuation.

 

If I’ve read this correctly maybe you, or a solicitor, should send a letter to NCLH telling them that you are ready to settle the insurance case and you are giving them fair warning that, any payment to them, for the evacuation will not be included in that settlement, unless they provide proof of payment. Also, that once the case is closed, if NCLH did not supply your insurance company with the required proof of payment, you cannot, and will not, be held responsible for any monies they think are owed to them for the evacuation.

 

Sorry if somebody else has already suggested this. This thread is quite long and I may have misunderstood some of it.

Anyway, best of luck, and hope this is resolved for you.

 

 

 

[Bongomauka]

16 minutes ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

If OP hasn’t (for many months) managed to get the necessary records required by the insurer (which, in addition to the Air Force cost, might also include the reason why its assistance was needed, e.g., ICD-10 Codes), I’m betting a US embassy or consulate’s diplomatic connections would be far more efficacious in getting their communications the desired responses. And that means there would need to be a signed release somewhere in that stack of paper.

As stated before, we made an appointment with the Portuguese embassy and 20 minutes before our appointment they canceled it, informing us that they do not handle these typified issues. 

[Bongomauka]

2 minutes ago, Vallesan said:

If I have read the situation correctly your insurance company is happy to pay your claim and the payment for the evacuation to whoever paid for it. ie. Portuguese Air Force or NCLH.

NCLH say they have paid. 
 

You need proof of payment by NCLH from them for your insurance company.

NCLH are unwilling/unable to provide you with that proof.

 

Your concern is that after your  insurance company has paid out your part of the claim, without paying for the evacuation, NCLH will then come to you at a later date and ask for a payment, from you, to cover the evacuation.

 

If I’ve read this correctly maybe you, or a solicitor, should send a letter to NCLH telling them that you are ready to settle the insurance case and you are giving them fair warning that, any payment to them, for the evacuation will not be included in that settlement, unless they provide proof of payment. Also, that once the case is closed, if NCLH did not supply your insurance company with the required proof of payment, you cannot, and will not, be held responsible for any monies they think are owed to them for the evacuation.

 

Sorry if somebody else has already suggested this. This thread is quite long and I may have misunderstood some of it.

Anyway, best of luck, and hope this is resolved for you.

 

 

 

Thank you for your post. You have quite succinctly encapsulated our issue. We have already reached out to three different attorneys, none of which are interested in helping us. If you know of an attorney willing to help, we are all grateful ears. 

[Vallesan]

Just now, Bongomauka said:

Thank you for your post. You have quite succinctly encapsulated our issue. We have already reached out to three different attorneys, none of which are interested in helping us. If you know of an attorney willing to help, we are all grateful ears. 

I’m in the UK so can’t help but I can tell you what I would do if I was in your situation.

 

You have done your best to get the information required for your insurance claim. I can see how you are concerned that the case may go over the time limit and you will end up without reimbursement.

 

I would send a letter to the CEO of NCLH, here it would be by recorded delivery so that there would be proof of receipt of the letter as it would have to be signed for. Don’t  know what your system is. 
 

I would state in the letter that I was giving them fair warning etc. and would then say that if you had not had a response within 10 ? working days you would close the case and would not be responsible for any monies etc. as I said in my previous post.

 

If they don’t respond I don’t see how you can be held responsible as you have given them ‘fair warning’.

 

I can see how you  might be concerned but in fact you are not responsible for reclaiming costs for NCLH, which is in effect what you’re doing.

If they choose not to let you help them, because that’s what they’re doing, then on their head be it.

Finally, NCLH may not have actually paid any money to the PAF so they don’t have proof!

 

I would also let your insurance company have a copy of the letter you send that way, as far as I can see, you have covered yourself in every way you can.

[Bongomauka]

25 minutes ago, Vallesan said:

I’m in the UK so can’t help but I can tell you what I would do if I was in your situation.

 

You have done your best to get the information required for your insurance claim. I can see how you are concerned that the case may go over the time limit and you will end up without reimbursement.

 

I would send a letter to the CEO of NCLH, here it would be by recorded delivery so that there would be proof of receipt of the letter as it would have to be signed for. Don’t  know what your system is. 
 

I would state in the letter that I was giving them fair warning etc. and would then say that if you had not had a response within 10 ? working days you would close the case and would not be responsible for any monies etc. as I said in my previous post.

 

If they don’t respond I don’t see how you can be held responsible as you have given them ‘fair warning’.

 

I can see how you  might be concerned but in fact you are not responsible for reclaiming costs for NCLH, which is in effect what you’re doing.

If they choose not to let you help them, because that’s what they’re doing, then on their head be it.

Finally, NCLH may not have actually paid any money to the PAF so they don’t have proof!

 

I would also let your insurance company have a copy of the letter you send that way, as far as I can see, you have covered yourself in every way you can.

[Bongomauka]

Just now, Bongomauka said:

26 minutes ago, Vallesan said:

I’m in the UK so can’t help but I can tell you what I would do if I was in your situation.

 

You have done your best to get the information required for your insurance claim. I can see how you are concerned that the case may go over the time limit and you will end up without reimbursement.

 

I would send a letter to the CEO of NCLH, here it would be by recorded delivery so that there would be proof of receipt of the letter as it would have to be signed for. Don’t  know what your system is. 
 

I would state in the letter that I was giving them fair warning etc. and would then say that if you had not had a response within 10 ? working days you would close the case and would not be responsible for any monies etc. as I said in my previous post.

 

If they don’t respond I don’t see how you can be held responsible as you have given them ‘fair warning’.

 

I can see how you  might be concerned but in fact you are not responsible for reclaiming costs for NCLH, which is in effect what you’re doing.

If they choose not to let you help them, because that’s what they’re doing, then on their head be it.

Finally, NCLH may not have actually paid any money to the PAF so they don’t have proof!

 

I would also let your insurance company have a copy of the letter you send that way, as far as I can see, you have covered yourself in every way you can.

Thank you for your post. To be clear, we received an invoice from the Portuguese Air Force so we are ultimately responsible for the bill. Writing a letter to Oceania/NCL Holdings warning them that they need to respond or we will no longer be responsible for payment would hold no legal weight whatsoever. We cannot unilaterally make that claim just as much as we cannot say that we won’t need to pay our income taxes because we sent a letter to the IRS saying they were late in sending us some documents we requested so we are no longer obligated t pay taxes. Unfortunately simplifying the description of a situation doesn’t actually make the situation simple. The issue that presents itself is how to make Oceania/NCL Holdings act swiftly and responsibly to our request for documentation. 

[Vallesan]

21 minutes ago, Bongomauka said:

Thank you for your post. To be clear, we received an invoice from the Portuguese Air Force so we are ultimately responsible for the bill. Writing a letter to Oceania/NCL Holdings warning them that they need to respond or we will no longer be responsible for payment would hold no legal weight whatsoever. We cannot unilaterally make that claim just as much as we cannot say that we won’t need to pay our income taxes because we sent a letter to the IRS saying they were late in sending us some documents we requested so we are no longer obligated t pay taxes. Unfortunately simplifying the description of a situation doesn’t actually make the situation simple. The issue that presents itself is how to make Oceania/NCL Holdings act swiftly and responsibly to our request for documentation. 

Ahh! I see. I hadn’t realised you actually had had an invoice from PAF. Can’t or won’t your insurers pay that invoice? Where do NCLH come in ?