Originally Posted by
ljknecht570
Last August I stayed at Marriott's Grand Vista in Orlando. When we got there I noticed that our front door did not always shut all the way. I made a mental note to make sure it was shut when we left. With 6 kids running around, I guess it didn't get shut one time. We went down to the pool and when we returned we noticed (but not for a while) that we had some equipment stolen. A gameboy, games, portable DVD player and some movies. (total about $500). I was mad but what was done was done! I called Marriott secuity to report it so they could be on the look out. A few minutes later they came up, took my report, and told me to call them with a guesstimate of the cost of everything taken. Within abut 2 week I had a check in hand from their insurance company. I was surprised and thrilled they way they handled it.
This example is not comparable, believe it or not. Marriott's Grand Vista is a TIME SHARE, which is a condominium, and the "guests" in this case are OWNERS, or renting from an owner, with Marriott as the condo manager.
The owners each pay annual maintenance fees, part of which is used for a common insurance policy which must be carried for the property. Why is this significant? It would not be terribly practical or efficient for each and every owner, of which there are usually 50 for each unit (representing 50 weeks owned and 2 weeks per year for physical maintenance) carrying an insurance policy for just one week, plus the pro-rata share of the common facilities. For example, if there are 300 units, each with 50 owners, that would mean that each owner would carry an insurance policy for 1/15,000th of the common facilities!
So, out of necessity, there is a community insurance policy, which each owner pays for in their maintenance fees. So, when there is a loss such as theft, a claim is put in through the insurance policy which is set up for precisely this sort of situation, and the payment comes from that insurance policy. In a pure hotel situation, there is not a common insurance policy, because hotels are not commonly owned by the guests.
Originally Posted by
ohmark
For the same reason that someone with status gets a better room or free internet or free breakfast or an occasional suite (even though the rules don't provide for such), as opposed to somebody else who paid the same exact price for a room. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that I would guess that the value placed by a business on a particular customer is one significant factor when deciding how to react to any situation. It's not the only factor and may not be a deciding factor, but one that most likely is considered.
No, sorry, I respectfully disagree. If Marriott were to compensate a frequent guest for loss, and not compensate a one time guest for a similar loss, then Marriott would open itself up for the civil version of selective prosecution. The one time guest would be within their rights to sue, and Marriott would be compelled to produce their loss records, and there it would be, plain as day, for everyone to see, Marriott paid out for guest A, and not for guest B, and the judge (or jury) would most likely rule that a lack of consistency was inherently unfair, and compel Marriott to pay guest B for the loss. However, if Marriott paid no one for room theft losses, then Marriott would not be open to charges of selective favoritism, because Marriott would not have established a precedent that could later come back to bite them in the tuchas!