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

New Isuzu Truck Recall Highlights a Claims Evidence Issue

05 Nov 2026: Paige Estritori

A fresh safety recall affecting 3,710 Isuzu MY25 trucks is a timely reminder that modern truck insurance risk is not only about driver behaviour, road conditions or workshop servicing. Software, trailer systems and electronic braking signals can all become part of the evidence trail if an incident occurs. - read more

Mental Health Cover Debate Now Matters for Business Protection

05 Nov 2026: Paige Estritori

Australia’s life insurance sector is moving into a detailed debate over how mental health conditions should be treated in disability-style cover, and the outcome could matter for business owners who rely on insurance to protect income, debt and operational continuity. - read more

Life Claims Inquiry Puts Delays Under Fresh Scrutiny

05 Nov 2026: Paige Estritori

A new Life Code Compliance Committee inquiry has put renewed attention on how Australian life insurers manage longer-running claims, finding that avoidable gaps in information requests and customer communication can add pressure to already complex total and permanent disability and income protection matters. - read more

New claims data puts life insurance dispute risk back in focus

05 Nov 2026: Paige Estritori

Australian life insurance claims performance is back under scrutiny after APRA released its latest Life Insurance Claims and Disputes Statistics on 16 October 2026, covering the rolling 12 months from 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2026. ASIC’s MoneySmart claims comparison tool was also updated on 26 October 2026, giving consumers and business owners a clearer way to compare insurers by accepted claims, decision times, disputes and cancellation rates. - read more

Claims review highlights the cost of slow communication

05 Nov 2026: Paige Estritori

A new Life Code Compliance Committee inquiry has sharpened attention on how life insurers manage longer-running total and permanent disability and income protection claims, finding that earlier information requests and clearer communication could reduce avoidable delays for people already dealing with illness, injury or loss of income. - read more

Click for more Insurance News