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 Cyber Risk Belongs in Every Restaurant Insurance Review

26 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

Fresh attention on cyber incidents across Australian businesses is a timely warning for restaurants, cafés and takeaway operators. Hospitality venues may not always see themselves as data-heavy businesses, but modern food service increasingly depends on connected systems: point-of-sale terminals, booking platforms, delivery apps, QR ordering, loyalty databases, rostering tools and cloud accounting. - read more

Why Fatigue Management Is Again a Truck Insurance Issue

26 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent heavy vehicle compliance activity has again put fatigue management near the top of the risk agenda for Australian transport operators. While enforcement is usually framed as a road safety issue, it also has a direct insurance dimension. Insurers assessing truck insurance risk increasingly look beyond the vehicle itself and ask how well the business controls driver behaviour, scheduling pressure, maintenance downtime and record-keeping. - read more

Why Fresh Insurance Market Data Matters at Renewal Time

26 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

APRA’s latest general insurance data has again highlighted a point many Australian tradies are already feeling at renewal time: a healthier insurance sector does not necessarily translate into simple or immediate premium relief for small businesses. While insurers continue to operate with stronger capital buffers and improved underwriting discipline, the costs sitting behind many policies remain under pressure. - read more

What Claims Complaint Trends Mean for Salon Insurance

26 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

Fresh complaints reporting from the Australian Financial Complaints Authority has put insurance service standards back under the microscope, with claim delays, communication issues and disputed outcomes continuing to feature in the wider financial services complaints landscape. For beauty salon owners, skin clinics, nail technicians and mobile beauticians, the lesson is practical: the moment a loss occurs is not the best time to discover that records are incomplete, policy wording is unclear or a treatment has not been properly disclosed. - read more

What NSW Insurance Levy Reform Could Mean for Trade Businesses

26 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

New South Wales insurance buyers may be heading for an important change as reform of the Emergency Services Levy continues to attract attention across the insurance sector. The levy has long been added to many insurance premiums in NSW to help fund emergency services, and insurers have argued that this approach makes cover more expensive for households and businesses that choose to insure. - read more

Click for more Insurance News