An American man is suing a travel insurance provider for $175,000 after it rejected his request to take his wife home for emergency medical treatment.
Stephen McNally, 66, of Florida, filed a notice of civil claim against the Canadian branch of MSH International Ltd. on behalf of his wife, Fiona, who died in 2023.
During a three-week trip to Europe in the summer of 2022, Ms. McNally, then 65 years old, developed Covid and severe pneumonia.
On the tenth day, she was admitted to an intensive care unit in Frankfurt and from there Mr. McNally contacted MSH to initiate a claim and have her transported to the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida.
Since a commercial flight could not provide the necessary care, a medical plane was needed.
In an attempt to expedite his wife’s return home, court documents obtained by the vancouver sunThey claim that Mr. McNally worked “diligently” between August 1 and August 15 to provide MSH with all required documentation to support their case.
He claims that the MSH staff he spoke with assured him that he could proceed with the air ambulance arrangements and file the claim after returning to the US.
However, later that day, MSH allegedly “informally” denied the claim and advised Mr McNally to file a formal claim instead.
An American man is suing a travel insurance provider for $175,000 after it rejected his request to take his wife home for emergency medical treatment.
Your browser does not support iframes.
According to the lawsuit, filed in Vancouver, Mr. McNally claims that MSH unfairly denied his request for emergency transportation to a U.S. hospital, despite its policy.
When selecting a travel insurance plan before his trip, he chose the Canadian provider as he spent summers in British Columbia with his late wife, who also had Canadian and US citizenship.
He chose the package with MSH because he said it specifically said it would cover major issues and an emergency evacuation home by air ambulance if necessary.
His late wife had ALS at the time, but did not need help with activities of daily living, a policy requirement.
After a week’s delay due to an exchange with the insurance company, Ms. McNally finally returned home from Germany on August 22.
But in December of the same year, MSH refused to cover transportation costs, claiming that his illness could have been treated in Germany.
The insurance company also alleged that the transportation had not been arranged or managed by its team, which is a condition of coverage.
However, Mr. McNally says that “the language of the insurance policy” did not stipulate that his wife had to be treated where the incident occurred and that the policy permitted emergency air transport to “the nearest appropriate facility.”
The terms also stated that it would transport the policyholder to a hospital in Canada or the policyholder’s home country, McNally said.
Referring to a specific section of the policy, McNally said in the lawsuit that it “does not require that treatment be unavailable where the injury occurred.”
He also said MSH told him that “proceeding with emergency airlift without final approval from MSH would not affect” the plan he had purchased.
In light of the incident, he is now seeking $175,000 and $100,000 for bad faith and punitive damages.
According to the Vancouver Sun, “the legal basis cited in the lawsuit is misrepresentation of contract and the duty of good faith and honest performance.”
MSH did not respond to a request for comment, while McNally told DailyMail.com that an out-of-court resolution is now being negotiated.
