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 the Life Code Review Could Mean for Mental Health Claims

08 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

The latest review of the Life Insurance Code of Practice has put mental health cover at the centre of the national conversation about life insurance, disability insurance and income protection. Independent reviewer Peter Kell has completed his final report, outlining 85 recommendations aimed at improving customer protections, claims handling, communication, vulnerability support and the enforceability of the Code. - read more

What APRA’s Reinsurance Changes Mean for Boat Owners

08 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

APRA’s latest update to the general insurance reinsurance framework may sound like a back-office regulatory change, but it has practical relevance for Australian boat owners watching premiums, excesses and renewal conditions. Published on 7 July 2026, the reforms are designed to give general insurers better access to alternative reinsurance arrangements while keeping safeguards in place for policyholders. - read more

Could NSW Levy Reform Make Insurance More Affordable for Small Business?

08 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

New analysis released by the Insurance Council of Australia has put renewed attention on a major cost pressure for NSW businesses: the emergency services levy, commonly known as the ESL. The levy is currently collected through insurance premiums, meaning businesses that choose to insure their assets can face a higher cost for doing so. - read more

Could NSW Emergency Services Levy Reform Make Insurance Fairer?

08 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

New modelling released on 7 July 2026 has added momentum to the debate over how New South Wales funds emergency services, with analysis suggesting that removing the Emergency Services Levy from insurance premiums could deliver meaningful savings for many households and businesses. The findings, commissioned by the Insurance Council of Australia and prepared by Lateral Economics, support a shift away from loading the cost onto insurance policies and towards a broader property-based funding model. - read more

Falling Cyber Cover Uptake Sends a Warning to Beauty Operators

08 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

A new cybercrime update has put a timely spotlight on a risk that many beauty businesses still treat as secondary to slips, burns, allergic reactions or damaged equipment. The Australian Institute of Criminology’s latest Cybercrime in Australia report, released on 30 June 2026 and covered by Insurance Business Australia, found that cyber insurance uptake has fallen even as online threats remain widespread. - read more

Click for more Insurance News