Insurance Claim Rejected After Flight Crew Timing Violation

3

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
Source: Paige Estritori

Share this news item:

Insurance News

Clear

ASIC Challenges Federal Court's 'Fair Term' Ruling 09 Jul 2025: Paige Estritori The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) is appealing a Federal Court decision regarding the wording of a 'pre-existing condition' clause in certain HCF Life insurance products. The court previously determined that while the wording had the potential to mislead consumers, it did not constitute an unfair contract term under the current laws set out in the ASIC Act 2001. - read more

ICA Advocates for Strata Law Reform in the ACT to Enhance Building Management 08 Jul 2025: Paige Estritori The Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) is urging the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) to adopt strata transparency regulations, aiming to enhance oversight of building repairs and maintenance by owners’ committees. This call was made during a parliamentary inquiry, where the ICA pushed for measures akin to recent legislative changes in New South Wales. - read more

Tasmanian Government Insurance Proposal Faces Industry Backlash 07 Jul 2025: Paige Estritori The Tasmanian government's recent proposal to establish a state-run insurance entity has drawn significant criticism from key players in the insurance industry. The plan, spearheaded by Premier Jeremy Rockliff, aims to expand the Motor Accidents Insurance Board into a broader service named TasInsure, offering products including home and contents insurance, small business coverage, and more. The RACT, a major player in Tasmania's insurance sector, expressed considerable concern, labelling the initiative as a simplistic answer to complex problems. - read more

Asbestos Scare Leaves Hospitality Business Uninsured 04 Jul 2025: Paige Estritori The discovery of asbestos-contaminated mulch in a Sydney park led to the cancellation of a festival, resulting in significant financial losses for a hospitality business. Despite these setbacks, the company's claim for coverage under its business interruption (BI) policy was rejected. - read more

Landmark NSW Decision: Dog Walking Costs Covered in Car Crash Injury Claims 03 Jul 2025: Paige Estritori In a groundbreaking decision by the NSW Personal Injury Commission, an insurer has been directed to cover the costs of dog walking services for a car crash victim. The commission ruled that these services classify as domestic assistance under the state’s Motor Accident Injuries Act. This case could pave the way for broader interpretations of 'attendant care services' for claimants. - read more