On August 19, 2026, the Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld an order requiring Generali-U.S. Branch to reimburse the full $38,658 cost of the trip. Generali had denied the claim, arguing the insured's "sickness" began before his coverage started.
The couple were seasoned travelers who took about thirty cruises between 2011 and 2021 and always bought travel insurance. They booked the Oslo departure in February 2021 and bought their Generali policy in February 2022. The insured, then 79, called himself a "fitness guy" - biking each morning and going to the gym daily, right up to two days before surgery. Diagnosed with spinal stenosis back in 2011, he had gone years without treatment.
The policy paid 100% for "Trip Cancellation" tied to a "Covered Event" that was "unforeseeable." A qualifying sickness had to "first commence while your coverage is in effect," require in-person treatment by a physician, and be disabling enough, in a physician's written opinion, to stop the trip.
His back began troubling him on long walks during a December 2021 cruise. An MRI followed in January 2022, and a physician's assistant diagnosed spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis. He tried injections in February and March. Through all of it he kept traveling, taking a 12-day cruise in March 2022 that Generali also insured.
Things changed on March 28, 2022. A neurosurgeon told him he needed spinal fusion surgery and warned of a "substantial risk" of losing "bowel and bladder control" if he delayed. The surgery, on May 17, 2022, turned out "more serious than anybody expected." His doctor later advised against the July cruise, so the couple canceled.
Generali pointed to the policy's pre-existing condition exclusion, which reached any sickness in the 180 days before coverage for which the insured "received... a diagnostic test, examination, or medical treatment." The court noted the insurer carries the burden of proving that exclusion applies. It found the surgery-driven condition was separate from his earlier back problems.
The sickness commenced during the coverage window and was not foreseeable, the court held, because nothing showed the insured knew about the surgery risk before buying the policy. On appeal, the court deferred to the trial court's factual findings, which it said were backed by competent, substantial evidence. Generali's three arguments each failed.
The ruling is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.
