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 rising builder failures matter for contract works cover

17 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

Australia's construction sector remains under pressure, with recent insolvency figures continuing to show building and construction as one of the most exposed parts of the economy. Higher material costs, tight margins, labour shortages, delayed payments and fixed-price contract stress have all contributed to a tougher operating environment for builders, subcontractors and project owners. - read more

How Softer Truck Sales Can Affect Insurance Decisions

17 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent transport industry sales updates point to a more selective new-truck market, with operators weighing replacement timing against finance costs, emissions planning, availability and contract confidence. For truck businesses, that matters well beyond the showroom. A change in buying momentum can flow through to vehicle values, repair economics, insurer appetite and the way fleets should set insurance sums before renewal. - read more

Cyber Scam Alerts: What Trade Businesses Should Check Now

17 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

Fresh small business cyber warnings are a practical reminder that digital risk is no longer just a concern for large companies with complex IT systems. For Australian tradespeople, the most damaging cyber incident may be far simpler: a fake invoice, altered bank details, a compromised email account or a scam message that looks like it came from a supplier, builder, real estate agent or client. - read more

Why Super Service Standards Matter for Your Income Protection

17 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

ASIC’s continuing focus on superannuation member services has put another practical issue in front of Australian workers: insurance inside super is not just about whether cover exists, but whether members can understand and use it when they need help. Recent regulatory attention on trustee administration, communication and claims support is a timely reminder for anyone relying on salary continuance or income protection benefits through their fund. - read more

What Genetic Testing Reform Could Mean for Income Protection

16 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

Federal moves to restrict the use of genetic test results in life insurance underwriting have important implications for Australians who are thinking about income protection cover. The reform is designed to reduce the fear that taking a medically useful genetic test could later make it harder, more expensive or impossible to obtain personal insurance. - read more

Click for more Insurance News