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

Claims Handling Scrutiny Offers Income Protection Lessons

05 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent industry attention on insurance claims handling has put a practical issue back in front of Australian households: a policy is only as valuable as the support it provides when a claim is made. For income protection insurance, that moment often arrives during illness, injury, stress and reduced cash flow, so clear communication and timely assessment matter enormously. - read more

What Fresh Life Insurance Data Means for Australian Families

05 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

Fresh industry data has again put the spotlight on the financial health of Australia's life insurance sector, with the latest APRA reporting indicating that insurers remain in a more stable position than during the most difficult years of claims volatility and pandemic disruption. For households, however, the important message is not simply whether insurers are profitable. It is whether the cover sitting behind a mortgage, young family, business loan or superannuation account is still suitable, affordable and clearly understood. - read more

Underinsurance Warning Lands at a Critical Time for Farms

04 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

Fresh insurance industry concern about underinsurance is especially relevant for Australian farmers as rebuilding and replacement costs remain stubbornly high. While the issue is often discussed in relation to houses, the same pressure applies across rural assets: sheds, fencing, pumps, tanks, grain storage, livestock yards, irrigation equipment and machinery can all cost significantly more to replace than they did when a policy was first arranged. - read more

ASIC Breach Reporting Trends Put Professional Risk Back Under the Microscope

04 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

Following recent complaints data, fresh industry attention on ASIC’s reportable situations regime is another reminder that professional risk rarely appears without warning. Breach reporting, client complaints, remediation delays and internal control failures can all become early indicators of a larger professional indemnity exposure, particularly for firms that provide financial advice, credit assistance, compliance support, accounting, consulting or outsourced professional services. - read more

Insurance Complaints Put Policy Clarity Back on the Agenda

04 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

Australia’s insurance complaints environment remains a useful warning sign for real estate agencies, particularly those relying on multiple policies across professional indemnity, public liability, cyber, office contents, business interruption and commercial motor cover. Recent dispute trends reported through the financial complaints system continue to show that customers are most likely to become frustrated when claims are delayed, declined, poorly explained or affected by policy exclusions they did not fully understand at the outset. - read more

Click for more Insurance News