Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Destinations > America - USA > USA
Reload this Page >

US hotel adds on "insurance" charge without asking

Community
Wiki Posts
Search

US hotel adds on "insurance" charge without asking

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Feb 7, 2014, 7:05 am
  #31  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by Will Fly Småland
Asking is fine. Even a Ryanair-style box that you have to uncheck at the time of booking is fine. What I have a problem with is hiding this until the booking already has been made and then requiring an explicit written opt-out.

As I know that you are familiar with Sweden, this is called the ban on negativ avtalsbindning in Swedish contract law. But I have the impression that this isn't as strict in American law.
When the charged amount (or means of calculating the amount to be charged) is not explicitly mentioned at the time of booking, it is problematic under contract and/or consumer protection laws in at least most US states and under US federal law too. Perhaps sort of like in the way that no-showing on Hyatt hotel award/"free night" stays means being hit with an undisclosed dollar amount penalty that can be even several hundred dollars or more for the "free" stay paid for with points? I personally find that problematic too, as I would find the circumstances which hit you.

negativ avtalsbindning for consumer transactions where the recipient/"buyer" is considered (by the "seller") to have purchased a delivered item/service absent prior consumer consent to purchase the item/service is indeed quite firmly restricted under Swedish law, but I'm not sure it is generally applicable to all Swedish contracts/transactions. [In many US states, under consumer protection/regulation laws and/or contract law, goods/services delivered to a "buyer"/recipient without explicit agreement (by buyer/recipient) to purchase the goods is not generally a valid debt of the recipient; I'd be surprised if much the same didn't hold up somehow under US federal law too.]

I say the above (i.e., the uncertainty about general applicability to all Swedish contracts) because I'm not so sure that a small clause with a default contractual commitment to a secondary purchase absent written, timely invocation under an affirmative negation clause is actually completely banned in Sweden; that said, I'll have that checked out by my resident "experts".
GUWonder is offline  
Old Feb 7, 2014, 12:25 pm
  #32  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Programs: Hyatt Diamond, Fairmont Platinum, Aeroplan Diamond, HHonors Gold, SPG Gold
Posts: 18,686
Originally Posted by GUWonder
For condo rentals -- including serviced/staffed condo complexes in ski resorts --- these kinds of situations do take place. I've been asked if I want to buy such "protection" at a few ski condo places in Colorado, sometimes at check-in.

State insurance commissioners are more helpful than the FTC, if there is such an insurance dispute as noted by the OP.
Originally Posted by Will Fly Småland
Asking is fine. Even a Ryanair-style box that you have to uncheck at the time of booking is fine. What I have a problem with is hiding this until the booking already has been made and then requiring an explicit written opt-out.

As I know that you are familiar with Sweden, this is called the ban on negativ avtalsbindning in Swedish contract law. But I have the impression that this isn't as strict in American law.
Agree asking is fine as well. The whole point of this thread was OP was charged for insurance without being asked. Quite the key to the karfuffle that started in the first place.
Ancien Maestro is offline  
Old Feb 7, 2014, 12:38 pm
  #33  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: PDX
Programs: DL, UA, AA, BA, AS, SPG, MR, IHG, PC
Posts: 862
Originally Posted by GUWonder
... because I'm not so sure that a small clause with a default contractual commitment to a secondary purchase absent written, timely invocation under an affirmative negation clause is actually completely banned in Sweden; that said, I'll have that checked out by my resident "experts".
Well, that certainly clears things up for me.
rbwpi is offline  
Old Feb 7, 2014, 3:49 pm
  #34  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by rbwpi
Well, that certainly clears things up for me.
Consumer law and contract law are sort of distinct in ways that aren't always clear as mud or better, especially when dealing with cross-jurisdictional matters.

Well, it is not banned in Sweden either if it is in the agreement accepted by the consumer even if the consumer missed the details at the time of initial purchase agreement but the detail was somewhere in there. Same for the US.

When the amount is not mentioned before or during time of purchase/contract establishment, the amount isn't generally legally available for collection enforcement -- not in Sweden and generally not in the US either.

The reservation system used for accommodation hiring/condo rentals doesn't mention the "insurance" amount, but the website going to it does have it buried in a couple places. Never liked such practices, but it seems like they do this out of a "better to plea for forgiveness than ask (explicitly) for permission in advance" because the former increases the amount of money they make (or, alternatively, reduces the amount of money they lose).

Last edited by GUWonder; Feb 7, 2014 at 4:17 pm
GUWonder is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.