Insurance Claim Rejected After Flight Crew Timing Violation

The information on this website is general in nature and does not take into account your objectives, financial situation, or needs. Consider seeking personal advice from a licensed adviser before acting on any information.

The frustrated passenger incurred additional costs when his flight from Palermo to London was unexpectedly stopped because the crew had worked the maximum hours allowed by law. He expected full coverage for these expenses under his travel insurance policy.

However, Lloyd’s Australia, the insurer, denied the claim, stating that the travel policy’s clause on additional expenses and disruption coverage only applies to events such as strikes, riots, hijacks, civil unrest, adverse weather conditions, or accidents involving the mode of transport.

The claimant argued otherwise, insisting that the crew reaching its working hours limit was akin to industrial action such as strikes, implying that the insurer had a too narrow interpretation of the policy's disruption cover. He stated that the restriction on working hours is a precaution to prevent accidents, which aligns with the "spirit of the policy".

Yet, The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) did not accept this reasoning.

AFCA pointed out the scant information provided by the claimant which linked the flight cancellation directly to crew working hours being exceeded. They reinforced that this situation is distinct from a strike.

“A strike constitutes a deliberate refusal to work, whereas regulatory limits on work hours are a constraint and not a chosen action,” noted the AFCA's ombudsman. “Additionally, equating flight crew timing regulations with an accident scenario is not fitting, since the clause in question applies to actual incidents happening, not cancellations meant to forestall potential accidents.”

However, AFCA acknowledged a part of the travel policy which offers coverage for scenarios where a flight is delayed over six hours due to uncontrollable circumstances.

Under this provision, the insurer is required to compensate the complainant with the policy’s cap of $2000.

“Although the insurer claims that these circumstances are specifically excluded by the policy, they failed to indicate which exclusion they are relying on and provide justification for triggering it. Therefore, it is unconvincing that the insurer has adequately clarified its entitlement to decline or reduce the claim under this section,” AFCA concluded.

This case was originally reported by Insurance News Australia.

Published:Monday, 9th Sep 2024
Author: Paige Estritori

Please Note: We do not endorse any specific products or companies. Some content is sourced from third parties, including press releases, and may not be independently verified for accuracy or completeness.

Share this news item:

Insurance News

Clear

Why Battery Freight Is Becoming a Truck Insurance Issue

10 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent transport and insurance industry attention on lithium-ion battery safety is a timely warning for Australian truck operators. The issue is no longer limited to consumer products catching fire in homes or warehouses. Batteries now move through freight networks in tools, scooters, e-bikes, electronics, spare parts and energy storage equipment, and that creates a different risk profile for carriers, depots and subcontracted linehaul work. - read more

Why Premium Differences Matter When Choosing Income Protection

09 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent income protection cost commentary has put a practical issue back in front of Australian workers: two policies that appear similar at first glance can carry very different long-term costs. For people relying on their income to meet mortgage repayments, rent, school fees, business expenses or family commitments, the premium is important, but it should not be viewed in isolation. - read more

Cyber Risk Is Blurring the Lines for Professional Indemnity Cover

09 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent insurance market commentary has again highlighted a growing challenge for Australian professional service firms: cyber incidents are no longer just an IT problem. When a system outage, data handling error, failed implementation, software defect or poor security recommendation causes a client financial loss, the dispute can quickly move into professional indemnity territory. - read more

Why Skipping Travel Insurance Can Be a Costly Saving

09 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent consumer reporting has again highlighted a familiar travel risk: some Australians are looking for savings by travelling without insurance, or by choosing the cheapest cover without checking whether it suits the trip. With airfares, accommodation and day-to-day holiday costs still stretching household budgets, it is understandable that travellers are scrutinising every expense. The problem is that travel insurance is often treated as optional until something goes wrong. - read more

Cyber Underinsurance Is Becoming a Bigger SME Risk

09 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

Fresh industry attention on cyber underinsurance is a timely reminder that many Australian small and medium businesses are still treating digital risk as an IT problem rather than a balance sheet risk. As more trading, payments, customer records, bookings and supplier relationships move online, a cyber incident can quickly become a cash flow, legal, operational and reputational event. - read more

Click for more Insurance News