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 Truck Insurance Pricing Is Splitting for Australian Fleets

16 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

Australia’s insurance market has moved into a more competitive phase, but truck operators should not assume that softer conditions will translate into automatic premium relief. A July 2026 market overview reported that insurer appetite remains strong for well-presented commercial risks, yet motor insurance is becoming sharply divided between disciplined fleets and higher-risk heavy vehicle operations. - read more

Chronic Illness Risk Puts Fresh Focus on Income Insurance

15 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

New research highlighted by Zurich has put a timely spotlight on a major challenge for Australian workers: people are living longer, but many are also spending more of those years managing chronic health conditions. For households that rely on a regular wage, salary, business income or contract work, this trend reinforces why income insurance is not just a product for sudden accidents. - read more

Why Commission Earners Should Check Their Income Protection Wording

15 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

A recent Australian Financial Complaints Authority decision has put an important issue in focus for sales staff, recruiters, account managers and other workers whose income depends partly on commission. The dispute involved a policyholder covered under an employer’s group income protection arrangement with MetLife. After a work-related mental health injury, he claimed on the policy, but his commission earnings were left out when his pre-disability income was calculated. - read more

Steadfast Takeover Bid Puts Broker Networks in Focus

15 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

A fresh development in Australia’s insurance broking sector is worth watching for boat owners, charter operators and anyone who relies on specialist advice to arrange marine cover. On 14 July 2026, Insurance News reported that global private equity firm KKR had joined the consortium seeking to acquire Steadfast Group in a proposed $7.7 billion transaction. - read more

Lifeline Breach Puts Cyber Cover Back on the SME Agenda

15 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

A reported data breach involving Lifeline Australia has renewed attention on a widening protection gap in the Australian cyber insurance market. While Lifeline has indicated that help-seeker and financial information were not compromised, the incident is a timely reminder that staff, volunteer, client and supplier data can still create serious legal, operational and reputational exposure for any organisation. - read more

Click for more Insurance News