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

APRA Halts Unjustified Premium Increases in Commercial Auto Insurance

18 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has recently taken decisive action to address significant concerns within the commercial auto insurance sector. In response to widespread industry protests over substantial premium increases, APRA has introduced emergency regulations aimed at safeguarding transport operators from financial hardship. - read more

Deloitte Forecasts Transformative Trends in Australian Insurance for 2026

18 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori

As the Australian insurance industry navigates a rapidly evolving landscape, Deloitte's 2026 Insurance Predictions report highlights two pivotal trends poised to reshape the sector: the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and the adoption of advanced climate risk modeling. - read more

TAL's Health Sense Plus Now Covers Income Protection Policies

17 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori

In a significant development for policyholders, leading Australian life insurer TAL has announced the expansion of its Health Sense Plus program to encompass income protection (IP) policies. Effective from 8 August 2025, this initiative aims to incentivise proactive health management by offering premium discounts to clients who engage in preventative health checks. - read more

AFCA Directs Insurer to Reinstate Critical Illness Coverage After Miscommunication

17 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) has recently ruled in favour of a policyholder who inadvertently cancelled his critical illness insurance due to unclear communication from his insurer, TAL Life. This decision underscores the critical importance of transparent communication between insurers and their clients, particularly regarding the implications of policy modifications. - read more

AIA Australia's Latest Enhancements to Priority Protection Insurance

17 Apr 2026: Paige Estritori

AIA Australia has recently updated its Priority Protection life insurance suite, introducing changes designed to simplify discounts, enhance policy clarity, and support premium affordability. These enhancements, effective from 9 November 2025, reflect AIA's commitment to providing value-driven solutions for policyholders. - read more

Click for more Insurance News