themicah

Ugh. At some point in the last year VS seems to have adopted a new internal policy where they narrowly interpret "Trip on a Common Carrier" to mean "individual flight segment" and narrowly interpret "delays" to end upon the earlier of a delayed aircraft's arrival or your departure on a different aircraft. I personally think this is contrary to the plain meaning of the benefits guide, and it's certainly contrary to their past practice. It's also bizarre because around the same time that they made this change, they issued new rules (3 --> 6 hours, new missed connection rule, etc.) that went into effect this summer, and the new rules don't hint at all at this change. You'd think if they were going to significantly alter their working definitions of the terms "Trip" and "delay" they would share those definitions with their customers.

Assuming I understand your scenario correctly (ICN-PEK flight delayed >3 hours, resulting in missed connection from PEK-XXX and overnight in PEK), I would harp on the fact that even if they want to insist that your ICN-PEK and PEK-XXX flight segments were two completely separate "Trips," not only was your ICN-PEK Trip delayed more than 3 hours, your PEK-XXX Trip was delayed overnight too. And the new missed connection exclusion doesn't apply to your trip since you bought it before the new exclusion was in effect.

Note that even if the new missed connection rule DID somehow apply to your trip (which it doesn't, because otherwise the 6 hour rule would apply too), the exclusion only excludes missed connections where "the delay that caused the missed connection does not meet the required time period of 6 hours." Since your first flight was delayed more than the minimum number of hours, even by the new extra-restrictive terms, your second flight would still be eligible for delay protection.

My guess is that you'll have no luck with the folks on the phone, who seem to have been trained to act like these ridiculous interpretations of the words "Trip" and "delay" are the most reasonable and obvious things in the world. But I had success appealing a somewhat similar denial (see upthread) by sending a barrage of snail mail letters to VS, the CEO and GC of The Warranty Group (which owns VS), the GC of Assurant (which owns The Warranty Group), a couple of Citi execs, and a couple of insurance regulators. I'm not sure exactly which letter did the trick, but I suspect it was the one addressed to the GC of The Warranty Group since the letter informing me that they'd recanted their denial came from a paralegal in The Warranty Group's litigation department.

Good luck! I know I've been booking all my flights on CSR instead of Prestige now that both have 6 hour delay protection.

michael_v

"GC of The Warranty Group"

General Counsel of the Warranty Group? Can you post the address?

akr1970akr

Part of the frustration I think we all with this is that the Citi benefit guide is what the consumer sees, but is clearly not the actual policy that VS is following.

And that doesn't seem to be anything they are willing to publicly share, presumably since the policy is between Citi and VS, even though card members can claim under it.

It could also be - which I suspect - that VS simply administers the policy and at the end Citi is writing the checks for losses. Maybe they collect a 12% fee on submitted claims, and don't particularly care about the denial numbers, since its not like claimants can renew with VS directly.

That is pretty normal for big companies in some kinds of insurance.

It will also make sense in the grander context of everything that has happened with some Citi cards - the bank is clearly suffering some losses from overly generous or ill thought out product design and needs to limit everything aspect of an offering that is bleeding money.

Something changed a year or two ago with how Prestige started treating customers - easy valid trip delay claims became denied. Perks were shredded. Retention offers vanished etc.

So some of VS behavior might be simply at the behest of Citi.

themicah

Looks like the one to whom I sent the letter left TWG in August to take a new job. But if you can figure out who the new one is, I just sent it to their corporate office:

[New GC Name]
[Title]
The Warranty Group
175 W. Jackson, 8th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604

It's possible they no longer have their own GC and it's been folded into Assurant in connection with their acquisition.

michael_v

Was that Amanda B? Her LinkedIn profile still says she is the senior counsel at Warranty Group.

themicah

It was a woman named Diana who has moved on (I prefer not to post full names here as flyertalk is googlable). On LinkedIn I see the Senior Counsel to whom you refer, as well as an Assistant GC, a "Counsel, Regulatory Affairs (Compliance)" and a "Sr. Vice President, Chief Compliance and Risk Officer." Maybe copy all of 'em.

michael_v

My four letters are ready to go. I will follow-up and post what comes out of it, if anything.

dchen2

During the big snowstorm in Chicago this weekend, my flight to Chicago was canceled and I finally made it to Chicago on a rebooked flight 24 hours later.

I saved my hotel and food expenses and will be submitting my claim soon. Luckily since this was direct flight, no worry about grounds for being denied based on missing connection.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Ins provider finds some other technicality to weasel out of paying though. We'll see. My first delayed flight claim in about 12 months. My previous flight delay claims from last year paid out smoothly but it sounds like the Insurance paying out claims took an 180 degree turn since then.

michael_v

My claim has been approved but for a lower amount. When I get home I will have to figure out what counted and what didn't.

michael_v

Quote:

Originally Posted by michael_v

My four letters are ready to go. I will follow-up and post what comes out of it, if anything.

What didn't count was a t-shirt I purchased during my layover. Everything else did: hotel, Lyft, mass transit pass, lunch, dinner. Thank you for your help in getting this claim approved!

jphripjah

I've got an unusual claim with Citi coming up and I'd love to get feedback on it before I submit it and before I decide what to do,

I live in Las Vegas, I'm currently on a planned 3 month trip. I’m spending two months in Southeast Asia. Then at the end of February I’m flying Bangkok-Auckland (stopping for two nights), Auckland-Niue (stopping for three nights), Niue-Auckland (one night), Auckland-Rarotonga-Aitutaki (3 nights there), Aitutaki-Rarotonga (2 nights), and Rarotonga to Papeete, Tahiti for 3 nights.

And THEN my plan was to fly from Tahiti to Mangareva before joining a tour with Lupine Travel by ship for about a week from Mangareva to Pitcairn Island and back. Then fly back Mangareva-PPT-SFO-LAS. As one does.


I just got an email from Lupine Travel this week saying that the Pitcairn Island trip is canceled/postponed as the ship that’s due to pick us up and take us to Pitcairn Island will arrive in Mangareva three weeks late.


We have the option to cancel and get all the money we paid Lupine Travel back, OR to do the trip with Lupine three weeks later, and they'll throw in a $550 rebate if we do the trip three weeks later.

I paid for all the flights and Lupine tour with my Citi Prestige card. I'm wondering what Citi will cover as a trip delay/cancellation expense here.

I'm considering any of the following options:




1. Do all the island hopping up to Tahiti and cancel the Pitcairn tour and fly back to the USA a week earlier than planned. Thus I would cancel my flight from Papeete to Mangareva, and cancel/change my flights to PPT-SFO and PPT-LAS to go home a week earlier. I would expect Citi to cover the cancel/change fees and costs of buying new tickets.




2. Do all the aforementioned island hopping up to Tahiti, fly back to Las Vegas, AND take the rescheduled Pitcairn trip three weeks later. Explain to Citi that it would have been cost prohibitive for me to stay in Tahiti for three weeks waiting for the ship, so instead I would change the flights fly back to Las Vegas like discussed in Option 1, and THEN fly back to Tahiti three weeks later, doing the Pitcairn trip, and then fly back to Las Vegas. Those flight costs and a few extra hotel nights in Papeete are the out of pocket expenses II would be incur and claim due to the delayed trip, minus the $550 saved from the discount now being given on the rescheduled trip. Do you think Citi would cover all that?




3. Fly to Tahiti as scheduled and stay in Tahiti for three weeks waiting for the ship. Send $5,000 bill to Citi. I’m not seriously considering this.




4. Fly directly home to the USA from Bangkok or Auckland or Rarotonga without going to Tahiti, and then cancel the Pitcairn trip or fly back to Tahiti from the USA as discussed in points 1 and 2.




What do you think they would cover? “Trip launching from remote destination (Mangareva) being delayed three weeks” is an unusual occurrence.

joe_miami

Probably none of what you proposed, except possibly the flight’s change fee to return home early, which the airline might waive anyway if you explain what happened. There’s absolutely no way Citi is going to pay for you to fly back there to resume the trip three weeks later.

jphripjah

Why wouldn't they? Look at the terms. They specifically cover airfare to rejoin an interrupted trip.

You will be reimbursed for the following eligible amounts resulting from the cancellation, interruption or extension of the Covered Traveler’s Trip due to a covered reason:

The value of the Covered Traveler’s unused transportation tickets or forfeited deposits, minus any refund or credit received from the airline or other travel supplier(s).

Change fees charged by the airline or other travel supplier(s).

A credit/voucher that is not used by its expiration date or within 12 months of the issuance date, whichever is sooner.

Other unused, nonrefundable travel expenses, such as lodging, tour fees or activity fees.

Additional costs to get the Covered Traveler home if the Trip is interrupted, as long as new arrangements are within the same class of service as the original booking, such as economy or business class.

Additional fares or tickets needed to rejoin the Trip that has been interrupted, as long as new arrangements are within the same class of service as the original booking, such as economy or business class.

Reasonable expenses for similar accommodations and meals that are incurred because of an interruption or reasonable extension of the Trip due to a covered reason.

Fees charged by a travel supplier(s) if one person cancels the Trip for a covered reason, and another person continues with the Trip alone. For example, this could include a single occupancy fee for lodging or cruise that was booked at a double occupancy rate.

Reasonable costs to return the Covered Traveler’s vehicle to their residence if they need to get home another way.

joe_miami

jphripjah

The point of my post was to ask for input about what people thought I'm entitled to and/or what Citi would cover. You have declared twice that they won't cover the flights to and from Tahiti but have offered no basis or explanation for why you believe that. Do you think I'm misreading the terms of their coverage about flying people home and flying people back to resume trips? I paid for the trip with their card and they promise to cover expenses relating to the interruption of the trip. The trip is being interrupted by three weeks.