For the second time, a Massachusetts court has ruled Norwegian Cruise Lines has to reimburse a couple who tried to reschedule a cruise the week after 9/11 only to be told that they not only couldn't do that, they wouldn't get their money back.
The Supreme Judicial Court ruled today the cruise line engaged in deceptive practices because it never told Mark and Tara Casavant about a secret, unpublished clause it had that only allowed for refunds based on complaints about specific conditions in the contract the couple signed when they bought their tickets.
The couple sought to change their booking to a later cruise because of their fears about terrorism in the days after the attack 10 years ago. The company refused their request and said they considered the request an unrefundable "cancellation."
In 2009, the Massachusetts Appeals Court also ruled the cruise line had to reimburse the couple for their tickets and subsequent legal bills. The company appealed, but the state's highest court said:
The evidence at trial plainly established that Norwegian violated the Attorney General's travel service regulations in two respects: first, it failed to disclose the refund policy; and second, having violated the disclosure requirement, it failed to refund the payments made by a cancelling customer within thirty days. These violations qualify as unfair or deceptive acts, and they caused the Casavants a loss: the lack of a prompt refund of the ticket price.
There is no unfairness in this result. As an enterprise engaged in the travel service business, Norwegian properly is held to have had knowledge of its obligations under the Attorney General's regulations specifically directed to that industry. It was established at trial that Norwegian had not disclosed its complete refund policy to customers in violation of those regulations. Such a failure would not entitle a customer who had purchased tickets and taken a cruise to relief under G.L. c. 93A because of a lack of injury. ... Such failure does, however, entitle customers who cancelled their trips to a refund within thirty days.
The court sent the matter back to Superior Court for a judge to determine the exact amount the couple is owed.
