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: If this information affects you, seek advice from a licensed professional.

Share this news item:

Insurance News

Clear

CHU Strata Index Uncovers Critical Maintenance Shortfalls in Australian Strata Properties

27 Mar 2026: Paige Estritori

CHU, Australia's largest strata insurance underwriting agency, has unveiled the inaugural CHU Strata Index, a comprehensive study examining the attitudes, perceptions, and behaviours of strata property owners across the nation. The research sheds light on significant maintenance gaps that could pose future risks to the integrity and safety of strata communities. - read more

Navigating Premium Hikes and Cybersecurity Risks in Australia's Insurance Sector

27 Mar 2026: Paige Estritori

In 2026, Australia's insurance industry is confronting significant challenges, notably the affordability of premiums and the escalating threat of cyber incidents. These issues are prompting insurers to reassess their strategies to maintain profitability and customer trust. - read more

Bridging the Gap: Enhancing AI and Cyber Risk Management in Australian Insurance

27 Mar 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent research indicates that Australian insurers are trailing their global counterparts in preparedness for artificial intelligence (AI) and cyber risks. This gap poses significant challenges as the industry faces rapid technological advancements and increasing cyber threats. - read more

Streamlining Compliance: Australian Insurance Brokers Seek Regulatory Relief

27 Mar 2026: Paige Estritori

Australia's insurance broking sector is advocating for regulatory simplification to alleviate the growing compliance burdens that impact operational efficiency and client service. The National Insurance Brokers Association (NIBA) has welcomed the Australian Securities and Investments Commission's (ASIC) 'Regulatory Simplification' report, which acknowledges the challenges posed by the current regulatory framework. - read more

Australian Insurers Tackle Premium Affordability Challenges

27 Mar 2026: Paige Estritori

In 2026, Australian insurers are prioritising premium affordability and insurability as key concerns, driven by escalating claims costs, climate-related losses, and technological advancements in fraud. According to Gallagher Bassett's 2026 global claims study, 22% of Australian insurance leaders identified premium affordability as their top challenge. This reflects the combined impact of claims inflation, macroeconomic conditions, regulatory costs, and increased catastrophe exposures on pricing and underwriting. - read more

Click for more Insurance News