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 specialty insurer adds capacity for construction risks

05 Nov 2026: Paige Estritori

Munich Re Specialty’s formal entry into the Australian primary specialty insurance market on 2 November 2026 is a fresh signal that capacity is returning to selected commercial risks, including construction and engineering. For builders, contractors and project owners, the development is relevant because it adds another recognised name to a market where placement outcomes still depend heavily on project quality, documentation and risk controls. - read more

Insurance Inquiry Delay Extends Wait for Small Business Answers

04 Nov 2026: Paige Estritori

A federal parliamentary inquiry examining small business insurance has pushed its final report from 27 October 2026 to 26 February 2027, extending the wait for recommendations on affordability, availability and regulation. For Australian businesses that rely on public liability insurance, the delay matters because the inquiry is looking directly at whether modern cover is meeting the needs of small firms, not-for-profits and community organisations. - read more

Life Claims Review Puts Communication Back in Focus

04 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

Why Liability Pricing Relief Still Needs Caution in Restaurants

04 Nov 2026: Paige Estritori

Australian restaurants and cafes may be entering a more competitive phase for liability insurance, but the latest market analysis suggests owners should avoid treating softer pricing as a signal that risk has reduced. KPMG Australia's October 2026 liability insurance review, drawing mainly on APRAs National Claims and Policies Database to December 2024, points to moderating pricing momentum after several years of premium strengthening, while also highlighting uneven claims experience across public liability and related classes. - read more

Commercial Insurance Softens, but Truck Cover Still Needs Evidence

04 Nov 2026: Paige Estritori

Fresh commercial insurance data points to a more buyer-friendly market, but Australian truck operators should be careful not to read the headline fall as a simple forecast for cheaper heavy vehicle cover. Marsh’s Q3 2026 Global Insurance Market Index, released on 21 October 2026, reported a 12 per cent fall in Pacific commercial insurance rates for the quarter, led by property and supported by strong insurer competition. - read more

Click for more Insurance News