I believe the biggest problem is the existence of a nonsensical law like the Jones Act. What on earth is that about?

It never fails to amaze me how Americans can be so anti big government when it actually helps people’s lives and yet put up with such idiotic legalism the rest of the time. So universal health care or introducing minimum vacation allowances is socialism but it’s okay for government to have a pathetic law that stops people embarking on a cruise in Seattle instead of Vancouver? Pah!

You may be thinking though of the difference between a roundtrip and a oneway cruise. On a one-way cruise between two US ports, you must stop in a DISTANT foreign port (Canada doesn’t qualify). In Ms. Cutruneo’s case, I’m guessing her cruise was from Vancouver to Seward (if it had been roundtrip Vancouver it wouldn’t have mattered if she boarded in Ketchikan because the PVSA wouldn’t have applied), so if she had boarded in Ketchikan it would’ve been a one-way cruise between Ketchikan and Seward falling under the distant foreign port provisions.

The trip insurance shouldn’t play the “government regs” card. Government regs say airlines can’t fly in certain weather or with defective aircraft…so a weather or mechanical cancel would not be covered by their logic. (In their defense if that exclusion was *clearly* stated, then it’s the purchaser’s risk/price decision to make).

I think it’s disingenuous to state that “travel insurance always finds ways not to pay” and glibly calling it a ponzi scheme. If the first were true, the industry would not exist. Regarding the latter, all insurance companies, including your auto, medical etc collect premiums with the general historical knowledge of what percentage of policy holders will likely end up filing a claim. The difference being the intent. Insurance companies, while certainly guilty of hugging their own “little print”, are required to have a reserve of funds available for potential claims. While that accumulation may appear to be ponzi-like, the intent of ponzi schemes is to encourage more and bigger risks. How does that affect the individual traveler?

Madoff is the latest poster boy of how ponzi schemes can go awry, to the detriment of all involved.

Stories like this encourage our cynical side to stand up and spit. A more balanced approach would be to realize this can’t be the first time that Access America (or any other travel insurance company) has adjudicated a policy in this manner and it would be prudent to have travel industry gurus geared up on finding a solution specifically focused on how this antiquated law applies to leisure-travelers on ships in the Alaska, Florida and any other applicable market. Anyone wanna be a hero?

When I go on any cruise or foreign land tour, I always travel 2 days ahead of time. Besides having more of a chance to arrive on time, I get to experience the city I’m departing from. Sometimes I even book my return a day later, just in case other problems come up.

The Jones act serves at least one purpose. There may be others, but this is the first one that came to mind.

The Jones Act seems designed to encourage US flag shippers. And this seems to be a way to force shippers to pay for a military necessity. Why? The US military, like others, needs to ensure it can control a lot of transportation (such as ships) in the event of war. They then use the transportation to move men and materials. An example was the use of the Queen Elizabeth II during the Falklands war. There are two ways to ensure adequate shipping can be controlled (either seized or rented). The first is to ensure that the domestic economy uses ships and maintains trained crews. The second is to build a bunch of cargo ships and pay to train crews and have them sit idle until these is a war. The first way is cheaper for society because society gets some use out of the ships during peacetime. The Jones act seems to ensure that the less expensive option is chosen.

Repealing the Jones act means that the Navy will need to buy a bunch of extra ships and hire and train a bunch of extra men. Nobody will lose their jobs because the Navy will hire the guys the shipping company lays off when business is lost to foreign carriers. Shipping prices will fall, but taxes will rise.

Usually, at least on Alaska cruises, the cruiselines will let you pay the fine and catch up to the ship but they do have the right to deny you boarding (the opposite is true in Key West, they usually do not allow you to board). So the question would be was she told by the cruiseline that she wouldn’t be allowed to board in Ketchikan or had she heard something about the law and just assume that she wouldn’t be able to catch up to the ship?

If the cruiseline told her, no we won’t allow you to board then I would say keep going after Access America. If she just assumed they wouldn’t allow her to board, then I’d say she’s out of luck for not checking with the cruiseline and her travel insurance.

For others reading this, for me the biggest issue is not the travel insurance (I’ve made several claims over the years without problem – but just like anything there are good providers and bad providers, you really need to read what is and isn’t included before deciding to purchase), but the fact that she chose to fly from NJ to Vancouver day of cruise which didn’t leave her any leeway in case something went wrong with the flights. Even if she’d been allowed to board in Ketchikan by paying the $300 fine, it would’ve cost less to fly in a day in advance and get a hotel room for the night – that would’ve been just as beneficial as travel insurance.

Trip CANCELLATION typically refers to cancellations that take place BEFORE the trip starts … i.e. before you leave home or board a plane. This scenario does fall under trip DELAY or at best INTERRUPTION.

I agree that Celebrity should’ve offered the opporunity to pay the fine for “violating” the Jones Act (which is archaic and should be abolished altogether, but that’s a whole different story). It would’ve been a lot cheaper, and they could’ve still enjoyed most of their cruise (and if I were them I would’ve tried to get AC to reimburse them if AA wouldn’t).

As for small claims court, read the AA policy closely, I bet they won’t be able to file in NJ and flying to wherever AA says court disputes need to be mediated, will add to their costs (and they probably will lose in court anyway).

I think this is a case where the insurance co.’s ass is well-covered, so she is going to get nowhere with regulators or the courts, but this is kind of a scummy exclusion.