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

What Rising Insurance Complaints Mean for Truck Operators

06 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

The latest insurance complaint trends are a timely warning for Australian truck owners, owner-drivers and fleet operators: the quality of a policy matters, but so does the way a claim is handled once something goes wrong. Across the general insurance sector, complaints continue to point to recurring pressure points such as delays, disputed decisions, communication gaps and confusion about policy terms. - read more

Why AI dash cameras are becoming an insurance issue for truck fleets

05 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

The latest fleet technology coverage points to a clear shift in Australian transport: AI-enabled dash cameras, telematics and connected maintenance platforms are moving from optional extras to everyday risk-management tools. For truck operators, the insurance implications are becoming harder to ignore. - read more

NSW Workers Compensation Pressure Puts Tradie Employers on Notice

05 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

Fresh attention on New South Wales workers compensation pricing is a timely reminder that insurance costs are not moving evenly across Australia. While some trade employers in other states have recently gained breathing room, NSW businesses are still operating in a market where scheme sustainability, claims duration and workplace injury trends remain under scrutiny. - read more

What Genetic Testing Reform Could Mean for Income Protection Applicants

05 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

Australia’s move to restrict the use of adverse genetic test results in life insurance underwriting is an important development for people who have been hesitant to explore personal cover. While the reform is usually discussed in relation to life insurance, it also matters for income insurance because many retail policies sit within the broader life insurance framework. - read more

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

Click for more Insurance News