An American is suing a travel insurance provider for $175,000 after it refused his claim to fly his wife home for emergency medical treatment.
Stephen McNally, 66, from Florida has 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 Mrs McNally, then aged 65, developed Covid and severe pneumonia.
By day ten, she was admitted to an intensive care unit in Frankfurt and from there Mr McNally contacted MSH to initiate a claim to get her transported to the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida.
As a commercial flight could not provide the necessary care, a medical jet was required.
In a bid to expedite his wife’s return home court documents, obtained by the Vancouver Sun, state that Mr McNally worked ‘diligently’ between August 1 and August 15 to supply MSH with all of the required documentation to support his case.
He claims that staff he spoke to from MSH assured him he could proceed with the air ambulance arrangements and submit the claim after returning to the US.
However, later that day, MSH reportedly ‘informally’ denied the claim, advising Mr McNally to file a formal claim instead.
An American is suing a travel insurance provider for $175,000 after it refused his claim to fly his wife home for emergency medical treatment
According to the lawsuit, filed in Vancouver, Mr McNally states that MSH wrongfully denied their claim for emergency transportation to an American hospital, despite it being outlined in their policy.
When he selected a travel insurance plan ahead of his trip, he selected the Canadian provider, as he spent summers in B.C. with his late wife, who also had a Canadian and American citizenship.
He picked the package with MSH as he said it specifically stated that 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 the activities of daily living, a policy requirement.
Following a week-long delay due to a back and forth with the insurance company, Ms McNally was eventually flown home from Germany on August 22.
But in December of the same year, MSH refused to cover the cost of her transportation, stating that her condition could have been treated in Germany.
The insurance company also claimed that the transportation had not been agreed upon or managed by its team, which is a condition of coverage.
However, Mr McNally says that the ‘insurance policy’s language’ did not stipulate that his wife had to be treated where the incident occurred and the policy allowed for emergency air transportation to ‘the nearest appropriate facility.’
The terms also stated it would transport the policy holder to a hospital in Canada or the policyholder’s home country, Mr McNally claimed.
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 the emergency air transportation without MSH’s final approval would not affect’ the plan he had purchased.
In light of the incident, he is now seeking the $175,000 and $100,000 in for bad faith and punitive damages.
According to the Vancouver Sun, the ‘legal grounds cited in the lawsuit is misrepresentation of the contract and the duty of good faith and honest performance.’
MSH did not return a request for comment, while Mr McNally told DailyMail.com that there is now an out-of-court resolution being negotiated.