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

ACCC Flags Potential Competition Issues in RACWA's Sale to IAG

04 May 2026: Paige Estritori

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has expressed significant concerns regarding the proposed acquisition of the Royal Automobile Club of Western Australia's (RACWA) insurance operations by Insurance Australia Group (IAG). The watchdog warns that this transaction could substantially lessen competition in Western Australia's insurance market, potentially leading to higher premiums and reduced options for consumers. - read more

NEOS Elevates Income Protection with Increased Medical-Free Limits

03 May 2026: Paige Estritori

NEOS has recently announced significant enhancements to its income protection offerings, effective from 11 March 2026. Responding to adviser feedback, the insurer has increased the maximum coverage available without mandatory medical examinations, aiming to simplify the application process for Australians seeking income protection insurance. - read more

Acenda Life Enhances Income Protection Policies with Increased Coverage Limits

03 May 2026: Paige Estritori

Acenda Life has recently implemented a series of updates to its Retail Life Insurance portfolio, effective from 11 April 2026. These changes are designed to provide greater flexibility and accessibility for Australians seeking income protection insurance, addressing common concerns about policy limitations and entry age restrictions. - read more

AFCA Supports Insurer's Application of Offset Clause in Income Protection Claim

03 May 2026: Paige Estritori

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) has recently ruled in favour of Nippon Life Insurance in a dispute concerning the application of an offset clause in an income protection (IP) claim. This decision underscores the critical importance of policyholders understanding the specific terms and conditions of their insurance policies. - read more

ASMEX 2026: Uniting Australia's Marine Industry on the Gold Coast

03 May 2026: Paige Estritori

The Australian Superyacht, Marine Export and Commercial Marine Conference (ASMEX) is set to return to the Gold Coast on 19-20 May 2026, offering a pivotal platform for industry professionals to connect, share insights, and celebrate achievements. Hosted at The Langham Gold Coast, this year's conference introduces a refined format designed to cater to all sectors of the marine industry. - read more

Click for more Insurance News