Reef Fish

" H. Huntzinger" <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-> wrote in message news:<{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba->...
    > Ray Goldenberg <> wrote:
    >
    > > Hi,
    > >
    > > Might I suggest that you consider third party insurance. It would not
    > > have mattered who was liable for tearing up your baggage. They would
    > > pay any legitimate claim.
    >
    >
    > True, but the loophole is "legitimate", and what level and burden of
    > proof is to be applied to prove that.

Hugh, read my posts AGAIN. This is the REAL WORLD. Not your imaginary
travel while you are lying on your army barracks.


    > For an allegedly
    > damaged suitcase, they could for example ask for a copy of its purchase

For the TWO actual incidents I reported (which you gleefully overlooked
while you chose to pursue your "asshole" characterization, obviously
directed toward me, but ended up pointing to YOURSELF instead), they
(the cruise ship office OR their insurance company) COULD but didn't
in either case. The only "proof" was the damaged suitcases themselves,
which they kept, after replacing me by comparable NEW ones -- in the
first case BETTER than mine; and in the 2nd case, not quite as good
quality -- all this was CLEARLY reported in my posts about those two
incidents!


    > receipt, so as to pro-rate its condition based on its physical age.

No receipt asked. In fact, in the first case, I did NOT even ask for a
replacement. It was VOLUNTARILY replaced by the cruiseship, not by my
insurance, nor by my request of a replacement.

I am just much more honest looking and straightfoward than you, Hugh!


    > Experienced travelers know that its a good idea to take photo's of their
    > luggage and to carry a set of prints with them, as this can be quite
    > useful in case the bags are lost.

So what's your point here? We are talking about DAMAGED (not LOST)
luggage. You are just mouthing to obfuscate. Why carry a set of prints?
Haven't you heard of DIGITAL cameras? Also, given how naive you are,
they probably ask YOU to prove that you didn't take the photo a century
or more ago, of someone ELSE's luggage. ;-))

"Experience travelers" you ain't, Hugh!



    > In cases where a bag is damaged,
    > these same photos may be used to show its prior condition and resolve
    > the claims quickly and painlessly, instead of having to decide if to get
    > into a long, protracted dialog that generally will have less and less to
    > do with the legitimacy of the claim and more to do with the customer's
    > persistence.

Again, this is completely IMAGINARY on your part, Hugh. In both cases
I reported, in case (1), no form was filled at all, and no claim was made
other than showing the torn piece of luggage. In case (2), I showed the
damaged luggage, the officer took my verbal account of what happened, and
I signed the form. PERIOD. I got a new replacement suitcase.

    >
    > For business, the double-edged sword with dealing with asshole customers
    > is that if you shut them up by paying off questionable claims,

Sounds like you have been tagged as an "asshole customers" to many times
you are thinking that's how they deal with everyone.

WRONGO, Hugh. You deserved every bit of what YOU get for being an asshole
that you are, judging by what you wrote about situations you knew NOTHING
about.

That's the sign of an ASSHOLE -- Hugh Huntzinger.



    > it means
    > that their behavior was rewarded, so they're more and more likely to do
    > it again the more they become a spoiled brat which costs you more in the
    > long run.

Speaking from your ARMY experience again? You may be right there that
your army superior whose asshole YOU KISS probably tell you to go fly a
kite just by you showing up.

I've seen YOUR type -- know you over 12 years on the internet. Know
that you haven't discussed a case with me squarely in the past EIGHT
YEARS because you said you held a "permanent grudge" against me, for
merely revealing (after the case had been long settled -- in the Cochran
computer fiasco) that you've been BLACKMAILED by Cochran's shill.

It is ALL in the newsgroup archives kept by Google.


Get over it, Hugh.

YOU "discussion" originated with your follow-up to MY report, of MY two
"cases" (as in case study) of damaged suit cases.

You were completely groundless in your speculations and assertions, not
only in those cases, but also in other cases IN GENERAL.

I say it again: The only "asshole" in this episode is you, Hugh Huntzinger.

    >
    >
    > -hh

-- Bob.

William Boyd

Reef Fish wrote:

HAY! This thread is long enough, haven't you sold one of these guys an
insurance policy yet. Try a used car, maybe they will bight on that.
Never did get my luggage replaced, and I took a picture of it while it
was in the Verandah Forward staging area, on 12/22/02, on Carnival
Conquest, with the forklift operator in the picture, digitally dated
shots. Hoppy

H. Huntzinger

Ray Goldenberg <> wrote:

    > On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 07:15:37 -0400, " H. Huntzinger" wrote:
    >
    > >Regardless of the source of the insurance, a claim can almost always be
    > >contested in some way if the insurer so chooses.
    >
    > Hi,
    >
    > I have seen many claims over the years and I don't recall seeing any
    > denied that were legitimate.

Of course they were, since payment isn't the hard part: the hard part
was the prior determination of claim legitimacy.


For example, in your recollections, what happened to those claims where
the legitimacy was in dispute, or could not be resolved?

Similarly, what are your recollections for what percentage of the time
that this occurs?


The blunt reality that not all insurance claims are paid.

Sure, we can all agree that those claims that were not legitimate
shouldn't be paid, but the problem is in determining legitimacy: this
process isn't perfect and probably never can be.

So there will be claim "errors" made where people who should have been
determined legitimate weren't paid, as well as claims that shouldn't
have been paid, are paid.

These "rejected good" and "accepted bad" errors are a risk in any
process. Some people will be more familiar with the descriptions of
Alpha/Beta Risk, Type I/Type II Risk, and/or Producer/Consumer Risk; the
concept is the same throughout: the risk of making a mistake in
judgement. When you study sampling plans (http://tinyurl.com/2usya),
you'll find out that it is not unheard of for these sorts of "error"
risks to sometimes be 10% or more.



-hh

Ray Goldenberg

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 08:20:14 -0400, " H. Huntzinger"
<{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-> wrote:

    >For example, in your recollections, what happened to those claims where
    >the legitimacy was in dispute, or could not be resolved?

Hi,

Yes they were all resolved to the satisfaction of the clients.

    >Similarly, what are your recollections for what percentage of the time
    >that this occurs?
A claim is denied in less than 1% of the claims requested.


Best regards,
Ray
LIGHTHOUSE TRAVEL
800-719-9917 or 805-566-3905
http://www.lighthousetravel.com

H. Huntzinger

Ray Goldenberg <> wrote:

    > On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 08:20:14 -0400, " H. Huntzinger" wrote:
    >
    > >For example, in your recollections, what happened to those claims where
    > >the legitimacy was in dispute, or could not be resolved?
    >
    > Hi,
    >
    > Yes they were all resolved to the satisfaction of the clients.
    >
    > >Similarly, what are your recollections for what percentage of the time
    > >that this occurs?
    > A claim is denied in less than 1% of the claims requested.


Less than 1%? Amazing. What do you credit this to?


-hh

Ray Goldenberg

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 07:01:55 -0400, " H. Huntzinger"
<{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-> wrote:

    >Less than 1%? Amazing. What do you credit this to?

Hi,

I assist my clients in planning their travel. I counsel them to plan
their cruise vacations with all the built-in safeguards in terms of
outside interference, airlines, etc. When they do get sick or
something else unforseen happens, I am there to assist them with all
of their insurance forms and have cultivated contacts at the insurance
companies to "smooth" their claim processing.

Best regards,
Ray
LIGHTHOUSE TRAVEL
800-719-9917 or 805-566-3905
http://www.lighthousetravel.com

H. Huntzinger

Ray Goldenberg <> wrote:

    > On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 07:01:55 -0400, " H. Huntzinger" wrote:
    >
    > >Less than 1%? Amazing. What do you credit this to?

    > I assist my clients in planning their travel. I counsel them to plan
    > their cruise vacations with all the built-in safeguards in terms of
    > outside interference, airlines, etc. When they do get sick or
    > something else unforseen happens, I am there to assist them with all
    > of their insurance forms and have cultivated contacts at the insurance
    > companies to "smooth" their claim processing.


Which sounds like that if they had a problem for which they want to
submit a claim but which isn't valid, you educate them why to not bother
submit a claim, correct? How often (%) does that happen?


-hh