Skip to content Skip to navigation

AirMedCare Network Medical Air Transportation Sales Commissions Class Action

AirMedCare Helicopter Flying Over Bridge

This class action is about incursions into sales territory and the failure to credit the salespeople assigned to that territory. What are the companies selling? Medical air transportation memberships. 

The class for this action is all persons in the US who were or are employed by the defendants as a Membership Sales Manager, from 2013 to the present.

The complaint claims that Global Medical Response, Inc. is made up of two other transportation groups. One of them is Air Medical Group Holdings, Inc. (AMGH), which does business as AirMedCare Network. According to the complaint, these two companies are virtually the same entity and they are jointly the defendants in this case. 

The companies sell memberships in their AirMedCare Network to Americans who are then entitled to be transported by an AirMedCare Network provider without out-of-pocket expenses if their illnesses are life- or limb-threatening or could lead to permanent disability. 

Apparently, some three million people have bought memberships, which are sold to them by membership sales managers (MSMs). Each MSM is assigned to a territory consisting of certain counties. Sales records are important to the MSMs because their compensation consists of base salary, to which commissions are added when total sales for the month rise above a certain figure. 

Other parties can sell in the MSMs’ territories. The companies’ compensation agreement says, “Memberships sold in these counties will be included in Total Revenue Dollars regardless of who sells the membership, unless track codes are used in which case, Total Revenue Dollars will be applied in accordance with the track code.” This means that memberships sold in an MSM’s territory are counted towards the MSM’s total sales, no matter who sold the membership, unless different codes are used. 

The companies sometimes send out sales letters to potential customers in the various territories. The resulting sales were originally assigned to the MSM for the territory. In some cases, the letters even included the MSM’s name. 

However, the complaint claims that lately the companies have not been giving MSMs credit for the sales in their territories. This is why the case has been brought by two MSM plaintiffs, Nikki Murdock and Les McGee. 

For example, in January 2018, the companies sent out nearly 40,000 letters in Murdock’s territory, and in May, another 85,000 letters. Murdock received no credit for sales from these letters. Similarly, the same January, the companies sent out over 36,000 letters in McGee’s territory and in April another 115,000. McGee was not given any credit for sales from these letters.

The complaint alleges that the letters used “the good name and reputation” of the MSMs and then refused to credit them for the sales, as company rules require. The complaint alleges breach of contract, conversion, and unjust enrichment.

Article Type: 

Free Case Evaluation

Fill out the information for a FREE and prompt case evaluation.

About you

Additional Information

Latest Tweets

Join Us on Facebook