Trial Run for Dogs in Resort Rooms

[Kay123456]

I’m actually kind of confused about the waiver since I have no legal training. Its fine and good these people are saying they will be responsible for damage caused by their pets, but what if (what if people), someone does get bit by a dog while staying on property. The guests without dogs aren’t signing any waivers, so whats to stop them from sueing Disney for medical and pain and suffering and all that?? I don’t get it.

 

[hunyb207]

Absolutely. That would be me. I don't want dogs at the resorts. Period.

I'm not going to change my mind. For me, it has nothing to do with deliberate misunderstandings though or being right or wrong. I know this is happening. I hope it doesn't expand to other resorts. I am trying to understand so I can make an informed decision about where I will stay moving forward.

I completely understand and have also said I hope it doesn't expand to the other resorts. But if your stance is "I don't want dogs at the resorts. Period" then wouldn't it make sense to just not stay at the resorts where dogs are allowed? I'm not trying to be snarky, honestly. Nothing anyone can say will change your mind (as you just said) so it seems like a simple answer to me. Sounds like even seeing a dog would upset you so why intentionally put yourself in a position where you might be upset?

 

[Ensusieasm]

I completely understand and have also said I hope it doesn't expand to the other resorts. But if your stance is "I don't want dogs at the resorts. Period" then wouldn't it make sense to just not stay at the resorts where dogs are allowed? I'm not trying to be snarky, honestly. Nothing anyone can say will change your mind (as you just said) so it seems like a simple answer to me.

Yes, I understand. I can now choose a non pet dog resort, but POR is very special to me and so many others. Until now, it was the only place we ever wanted to stay when visiting Disney World, for a long list of reasons. So, staying at another resort will always be, for us, disappointing and even sad.

 

[Disneylover99]

I completely understand and have also said I hope it doesn't expand to the other resorts. But if your stance is "I don't want dogs at the resorts. Period" then wouldn't it make sense to just not stay at the resorts where dogs are allowed? I'm not trying to be snarky, honestly. Nothing anyone can say will change your mind (as you just said) so it seems like a simple answer to me.

Of course. And that is my intention at the moment. But I am following what is happening at the four resorts now in order to try and understand what the impact will be to non dog lovers in case this is expanded to other resorts. There may be some resorts that have less impact than others. I'll be interested in reports of this over the next several months.

 

[JACKNAG]

Does anyone know if there is thread reporting on the current dog policy and reports on first hand experiences?

 

[Dis703]

Does anyone know if there is thread reporting on the current dog policy and reports on first hand experiences?

Yes, there was another one started here in the Resorts forum. I think it's mainly just booking experience at this point though since it's so early.

 

[Candlelady]

I completely understand and have also said I hope it doesn't expand to the other resorts. But if your stance is "I don't want dogs at the resorts. Period" then wouldn't it make sense to just not stay at the resorts where dogs are allowed? I'm not trying to be snarky, honestly. Nothing anyone can say will change your mind (as you just said) so it seems like a simple answer to me. Sounds like even seeing a dog would upset you so why intentionally put yourself in a position where you might be upset?

Disney is the party who is intentionally allowing the dogs. Disney is giving me no choice. I am terrified of unfamiliar dogs. I own at BCV.
If dogs are allowed on the walkways, there is no way for me to avoid them beside staying only on BC property.

 

[MuppetFan418]

I'm staying at Yacht Club over Christmas with my pup and can't wait, as we originally had Best Friends Pet booked. I never posted on here but noticed there were some proponents (and opponents) of the new dog policy at Disney and got the urge to finally speak up.

I can't help but think some of the opponents haven't ventured OUT of Disney World, as some of the more high end luxury resorts in the world are in fact pet friendly (ie. Four Seasons and Ritz Carlton).

Anywho, we'll be there with our pup and so glad we can have him with us at night.

Not necessarily. I've stayed at several Ritz-Carlton properties and a Four Seasons. I've also stayed at a Loews property and a couple of Fairmont properties. I was aware prior to each stay that pets were accepted at these hotels/resorts; however, I still stayed at these properties because I figured that the pets would not be left unattended for many hours on end. I also understood that unattended pets must be crated--this does not appear to be the case at WDW.

 

[Ensusieasm]

Disney is the party who is intentionally allowing the dogs. Disney is giving me no choice. I am terrified of unfamiliar dogs. I own at BCV.
If dogs are allowed on the walkways, there is no way for me to avoid them beside staying only on BC property.

And with all the shared amenities and connecting walkways, that might not work all that well for you either.

 

[gwynne]

And with all the shared amenities and connecting walkways, that might not work all that well for you either.

I think this issue (at the Beach Club) is going to cause some real uproar with DVC folks. It's why I have some hope that eventually YC will be pet free.

 

[Candlelady]

And with all the shared amenities and connecting walkways, that might not work all that well for you either.

No, it won't work at all. I will be a nervous wreck. But it's money and dogs before people now.

 

[Miumiu4me]

No, it won't work at all. I will be a nervous wreck. But it's money and dogs before people now.

It's money. If the policy causes WDW to lose money they will change it.

 

[P'colaBeachBum]

And with all the shared amenities and connecting walkways, that might not work all that well for you either.

There are the convention people that stay at the YC since the YC convention center is close by. Wonder how it will impact the available rooms there. Also, didn't they expand the convention center recently?

 

[bellenbooks4me]

I completely understand and have also said I hope it doesn't expand to the other resorts. But if your stance is "I don't want dogs at the resorts. Period" then wouldn't it make sense to just not stay at the resorts where dogs are allowed? I'm not trying to be snarky, honestly. Nothing anyone can say will change your mind (as you just said) so it seems like a simple answer to me. Sounds like even seeing a dog would upset you so why intentionally put yourself in a position where you might be upset?

I think that most people who feel they do not want (absolutely don’t want) to be at a pet friendly resort for a variety of reasons (allergies, family member with a fear of dogs, policy confusion etc...) wil go out of their way to avoid staying at these 4 resorts in the future
HOWEVER, due to the way this new policy was rolled out, there are people who can’t “just stay somewhere else” as they can’t change plans made a year ago - and they have reservations in the next few days or within a couple months (think the holiday crowds). For them, this is something being forced upon them & there is a good possibility that with all rooms being booked up that they may be forced to stay in a pet friendly building- wasn’t their choice & wasn’t something they had the opportunity to “plan” for (or plan to avoid). This is what is infuriating, it’s not the service animals (always well-trained & always should be accommodated- and I for one am tired of seeing the argument that “service animals are already there so what is the big deal” - it is different, as other dog owners may think their pet is friendly or well-trained when they really aren’t & that puts other people at risk- you can’t always predict behavior of a pet or an owner)it’s the change in policy that impacts people who have no choice or options to address this, it was thrown on them. It should have been announced at least 200 Days in advance of the change - (with planning of meals needing 180 Days, I think this would be accepted more). Not perfect, but at least better for working with people who need or want to avoid areas etc...

 

[wdwlver]

I think this issue (at the Beach Club) is going to cause some real uproar with DVC folks. It's why I have some hope that eventually YC will be pet free.

BCV owner here too and I agree.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

That's not surprising. I recently went to a CLE and learned that something around 25 percent of that state is driving around without BI. Most people don't know what's on their policy until they're in an accident. Then they're shocked to find out that they don't have enough or any coverage.

I had to rent a car recently. I was offered "full coverage" auto insurance with it. As a test, I asked the girl to explain the limits of liability, UIM/UM, etc. She had no idea what I was talking about. I think this is a common issue down here. No one knows what's on their policy and they assume they're fully covered because that's the term agents are trained to use.

Now, as an aside,if a Florida rental car causes bodily injuries in an accident, state law mandates that the self insured company provide 10k per person,20k person accident.

I'm a little rusty as I haven't been in the insurance industry for a couple of years but it wasn't exactly fun learning the laws and rules and coverages for 35-ish states. And some states, like FL and one of the Carolinas (I can't remember which one) the insurance company refused to do business in either due to the coverages not required or because it was not easy to do business with in terms of working with the insurance companies and the DOI (department of insurance).

Off-topic I know but this is what coverages my state has as far as the basic coverages:

• Bodily Injury Liability* pays for the other person’s medical expenses, rehabilitation, funeral costs, and other covered costs, if you or your family are at fault in an auto accident. It also pays for settlement of lawsuits and your legal expenses.
• Property Damage Liability* pays when you or your family members damage other property in an accident. It pays for repair, replacement, or cash value of the other owner’s property. It also pays for your legal expenses.
• Personal Injury Protection (PIP or No-fault)* pays for medical expenses, rehabilitation, funeral expenses, lost wages, and in-home assistance for you and your passengers injured in an accident, regardless of who is at fault. Passengers who own their own cars collect under their policy.
• Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Protection* pays you or your passengers for medical, rehabilitation, and funeral costs. It also pays settlements of lawsuits resulting from an accident caused by an uninsured, underinsured or hit-and-run motorist. You and your family are covered as pedestrians or when riding your bike.
• Collision pays for the repair of your car in a collision or rollover.
• Comprehensive pays for damage to your auto resulting from windstorm, fire, hail, etc.

* These four coverages are required.

This is my state's minimum required coverage:

• Liability coverage
  • $25,000/person for bodily injury
  • $50,000/accident for bodily injury
  • $25,000/accident for property damage
• Personal injury protection (PIP or No Fault)
  • Minimum amount required by law:
    • $4,500/person for medical expenses
    • $900/month for one year for disability/loss of income
    • $25/day for in-home services
    • $2,000 for funeral, burial or cremation expense
    • $4,500 for rehabilitation expense
  • Survivor Benefits: Disability/loss of income up to $900/month for one year
  • In-home services up to $25/day for one year
• Uninsured/Underinsured
  • $25,000/person
  • $50,000/accident

Chances are if you looked up your (general you/r) states the coverages may not match exactly what I have in my state (it's at least a possibility).

In regards to the UM/UIM coverage aspect the other poster brought up--as an example the state bordering mine has the following information on that coverage: insurers are required to offer UM/UIM in the same amount as the bodily injury liability limits you select. UM/UIM can be waived only if it's rejected in writing. You may select limits starting at $25,000/$50,000 on up to the same amount of liability coverage you purchase on your own policy.

In a nutshell states vary on coverages and UM/UIM can be rejected in states with a waiver so to me that's why comparing the liability part of Disney's pet waiver didn't quite match up in my mind.

*Anywho sorry for the off-track talk*

 

[hunyb207]

I think that most people who feel they do not want (absolutely don’t want) to be at a pet friendly resort for a variety of reasons (allergies, family member with a fear of dogs, policy confusion etc...) wil go out of their way to avoid staying at these 4 resorts in the future
HOWEVER, due to the way this new policy was rolled out, there are people who can’t “just stay somewhere else” as they can’t change plans made a year ago - and they have reservations in the next few days or within a couple months (think the holiday crowds). For them, this is something being forced upon them & there is a good possibility that with all rooms being booked up that they may be forced to stay in a pet friendly building- wasn’t their choice & wasn’t something they had the opportunity to “plan” for (or plan to avoid). This is what is infuriating, it’s not the service animals (always well-trained & always should be accommodated- and I for one am tired of seeing the argument that “service animals are already there so what is the big deal” - it is different, as other dog owners may think their pet is friendly or well-trained when they really aren’t & that puts other people at risk- you can’t always predict behavior of a pet or an owner)it’s the change in policy that impacts people who have no choice or options to address this, it was thrown on them. It should have been announced at least 200 Days in advance of the change - (with planning of meals needing 180 Days, I think this would be accepted more). Not perfect, but at least better for working with people who need or want to avoid areas etc...

And I've seen that many people who like this new policy agree that they don't like how it was rolled out. As far as the service dogs already being there my point and others has been that if you want a room that a dog has never been in it can't be guaranteed. Even if pets are only allowed to stay in a certain building the service dogs can stay wherever their owners want. Service dogs are still dogs and can still trigger your allergies. If your young child is terrified of dogs I doubt they will know the difference between a service dog and a regular pet.

 

[andrewilley]

And I've seen that many people who like this new policy agree that they don't like how it was rolled out.

I don't think ANYONE likes how this was rolled out with just two days notice to guests, I personally feel it was really bad planning on Disney's part. They should have announced it with a lot more time to iron the issues out before any guests started arriving with dogs, and allowing people to change plans if they still felt they needed to (or indeed to make plans if they were dog owners).

I suspect Disney had no idea of what level of criticism they'd get over this - they didn't even seem to do any research surveys in advance. I do wonder if they assumed that as everyone loves cute doggy videos on YouTube and Facebook it was a foregone conclusion that everyone would also adore having those same lovable fluff-bunnies around them during their vacation stay. Seems to have worked out otherwise...

Andre

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

As the form lays out, the policy seems purposefully vague in a number of areas - all of which Disney says it can change when it wants and expense it to the dog owner. I don't think that type of "open-ended, change it as we see fit" approach is helpful to guests in general.

Ahhh I gotcha. I just quoted the part that I was going to comment on but thanks for explaining your comment more.

So onto the comment of yours I quoted: I totally understand the concern on the vagueness. I guess I'm honestly so used to this aspect that I didn't expect anything less. Reading insurance policy contracts where I wasn't legally allowed to interpret them was interesting in that many terms used, many wordings, etc were designed to be vague in order to ultimately give the insurance company the ability to deny coverage. It was also because they didn't really want to come up with all the what ifs out there (as an example of course not all would be this way nor would all products be this way).

I could liken it to open vs named perils on a homeowner's insurance policy. A named peril-where you've clearly spelled out what is covered leaves you as the insured at a disadvantage when it comes to things that occur. You could say that for Disney they see a named peril (just using the same verbage for understanding purposes) as a disadvantage to them. An open peril-where what isn't covered is what's listed and then what is covered is left--open.

So to me in this case it's like Disney has named a few things of what isn't covered (and you could also say rules as well): damage to property, dog owner agrees to relased Disney from liability, etc but has left more things open than closed. It gives Disney the ability to more easily adjust over time. So many posters have come up with the 'whatifs' and to me it's like Disney is choosing to come up with certain 'whatifs' and is leaving more things open and with the ability to change.

As far as being helpful to their guests honestly in my mind I'm just thinking in broader terms in that we experience vague policy contracts in our everyday lives. Most tend to lean not towards being the most helpful towards the consumer. Doesn't mean I don't understand what either 'side' is going to have to deal with in terms of the vagueness I'm just looking at it in a different angle.

*Apologies for the long comment*

 

[LSUmiss]

I’m actually kind of confused about the waiver since I have no legal training. Its fine and good these people are saying they will be responsible for damage caused by their pets, but what if (what if people), someone does get bit by a dog while staying on property. The guests without dogs aren’t signing any waivers, so whats to stop them from sueing Disney for medical and pain and suffering and all that?? I don’t get it.

That’s what I thought. I think there is no way WDW can release themselves from liability. Think it’s just extra. Like WDW can go after the guest with the pet to recoup the money they paid out to the victim.