COVID-19健康豁免:旅行顾问需要知道什么
byPaul Ruden/
我的last column在与客户的某些或所有互动中,设定了适用于专业旅行顾问的一长串披露义务。这些义务是专业的“价格”的一部分,该地位已被法院转化为高标准的信托责任。我已经在先前的列中讨论了这一点。这些是实质性的要求,但它们并不是旅行顾问所独有的。医生,护士,律师,会计师等,都必须始终遵守专业标准。
随着美国和世界其他地方的moves into the “re-opening” phase following the global lockdown during what we hope was the worst of the pandemic, it is particularly important that advisors be aware of these obligations. Travelers and suppliers are counting on you to help light the way back to a world in which travel is enjoyed by millions.
重新开放将提出其他披露挑战。领先的是:顾问必须了解和向客户报告供应商掩盖和社会疏远政策和实践的知识?
There are, for example, reports that airlines have failed to issue clear policies and/or are not enforcing their announced policies, includingAmerican和其他。这为顾问带来了一个问题,因为尤其是在重新开放阶段,许多旅行者将非常关注旅行中的健康安全问题。
If a client is placed on Carrier A by an advisor and it turns out that at the airport or, worse, en route, the carrier is not enforcing its stated policy to require masks or to ensure seat separation for unrelated passengers, the traveler may well feel threatened. In the worst case, that person becomes ill with COVID-19 and believes that she was infected on the aircraft because the carrier did not enforce its policy. Rightly or not, she thinks her advisor knew or should have known of the carrier’s failure. Serious legal consequences may follow.
这种风险与顾问出售的旅行经验的所有要素有关。与供应商的大流行驱动健康实践政策相提并论本身就是一个巨大的挑战,这使一些供应商拥有政策但不执行合规性的情况更加复杂。
Of course, there are issues of ability to prove the source of infection in each case, but that won’t stop the lawsuits from being filed, creating a need to defend. Such suits will argue that since travel advisors are fiduciaries in relation to their clients, they have an obligation to disclose both any policies they have reason to know about and also that the carrier is not complying with its stated policies, if they know or have reason to know that. Obviously, there are complicated factual issues involved here, but you really do not want to be in the middle of such claims.
您可能在想:我有义务知道什么,我该如何合理地期望知道每个机场,飞机,酒店等等?这是一个公平合理的问题。答案应该是您没有义务知道您不知道的知识。但是,如果在X或Airline A上有贸易媒体报道对执行问题的报道,您可能会负责了解和建议您的客户。如果您将许多以前的旅行者放在X酒店,则投诉方将寻求发现您可能收到的任何投诉。您的全体员工需要注意这些问题。
The harder question is whether you are required to inquire of each supplier in an itinerary to ask whether, for example, the mask policy is enforced rigorously. I don’t think that is a reasonable expectation, but until there is litigation about these issues, I can’t guarantee that you do not have a duty of specific inquiry. Moreover, if a client has mentioned during your planning/advice discussions that she is concerned about the question, you would be well-advised to make those inquiries and keep good records of what you did, what you were told and by whom.
最终,保护自己的唯一可行方法是从客户那里获得精心制作的,签署的豁免。豁免的本质将指出,经过合理的询问,您为客户提供了有关所涉及的大流行保护政策和实践的最佳信息不要像政策所建议的那样勤奋地应用这些政策。豁免可能还会提醒旅行者,即使供应商诚实地努力执行其良好做法,一些旅行者也可能只是拒绝合作。
We need to recognize that such a waiver is unlikely to engender positive reactions from skittish travelers. Each advisor will have a tough judgment to make regarding when to use such waivers. One such problem is how to explain the application of the waiver to deferred travel that clients previously bought and want to use in the reopened travel environment. It is very important to have your attorney draft the waiver so that it complies with any technical requirements for waivers in states where your clients reside. It should cover airlines, hotels and any other suppliers involved in a client’s itinerary.
我知道,ASTA最近已签署了一封给国会的多缔合信,要求立法,为“企业(等)企业……努力遵循适用的公共卫生指南,针对COVID-19的曝光索赔”。这样的立法,如果采用的话,不太可能解决此处不遵守自己关于大流行保护的政策的供应商所解决的问题。没有这样做,专业旅行顾问应立即与此处讨论的豁免律师咨询,以便在制定新的销售或重新延期延期延期旅行计划时获得最佳保护。