My wife died after a travel insurance company refused to pay $175,000 for a private jet from Europe when she became ill
An American is suing a travel insurer for $175,000 after it denied his claim to fly his wife home for emergency medical treatment.
Stephen McNally, 66, of Florida has filed a 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 day ten she was admitted to an intensive care unit in Frankfurt and from there Mr. McNally contacted MSH to file a claim to have her transported to the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida.
Because a commercial flight could not provide the necessary care, a medical aircraft was needed.
In an effort to expedite his wife’s return home, court documents obtained by the Vancouver Sunstate that Mr. McNally worked “diligently” between August 1 and 15 to provide MSH with all required documentation to support his case.
He claims that the MSH staff he spoke to assured him that he could continue with the air ambulance arrangements and file the claim upon his return to the US.
However, later that day, MSH ‘informally’ rejected the claim and advised Mr McNally to make a formal claim instead.
An American is suing a travel insurer for $175,000 after it denied his claim to fly his wife home for emergency medical treatment
According to the lawsuit, filed in Vancouver, Mr. McNally alleges that MSH wrongly denied their claim for emergency transportation to a U.S. hospital, despite this being stated in their policy.
When selecting travel insurance prior to his trip, he chose the Canadian provider as he spent summers in BC with his late wife, who also had Canadian and American citizenship.
He chose the package with MSH because he said it specifically stated it would cover major issues and an emergency evacuation home via air ambulance if necessary.
His late wife had ALS at the time, but she did not require assistance with activities of daily living, a policy requirement.
After a week’s delay due to back and forth contact with the insurance company, Ms. McNally was finally flown home from Germany on August 22.
But in December of the same year, MSH refused to cover the costs of her transportation, saying her condition could have been treated in Germany.
The insurance company also claimed that the transportation was not agreed upon or managed by its team, which is a condition for coverage.
However, Mr McNally says the ‘language of the insurance policy’ did not require his wife to be treated at the scene of the incident and that the policy allowed for emergency air transport to ‘the nearest appropriate facility’.
The terms also stated that the policyholder would be transported to a hospital in Canada or the policyholder’s home country, Mr. McNally alleged.
Referring to a specific part of the policy, McNally said in the lawsuit that it “does not require that treatment not be available at the location where the injury occurred.”
He also said that MSH told him that “continuing emergency airlift without MSH’s final approval would have no impact” on the plan he had purchased.
In light of the incident, he is now seeking $175,000 and $100,000 for bad faith and damages.
According to the Vancouver Sun, the “legal grounds raised in the lawsuit are misrepresentation of the contract and the duty of good faith and fair performance.”
MSH did not return a request for comment, while Mr McNally told DailyMail.com that an out-of-court settlement is now being negotiated.
