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

Why Builder Insolvencies Are Becoming a Strata Insurance Issue

26 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

Fresh reporting on Australia's construction sector has highlighted a problem that strata communities cannot afford to treat as background noise: builder and trade contractor failures remain a live risk for apartment buildings, particularly where major repairs, defect rectification or insurance reinstatement works are required. - read more

Why Rebuild Cost Pressure Matters for Strata Insurance

26 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

Fresh attention on Australia's construction cost environment is a useful reminder for strata communities that insurance adequacy is not just about the premium charged at renewal. For owners corporations and body corporates, the more important question is whether the insured value of the building would still be enough to rebuild, reinstate common property and meet associated professional costs after a major loss. - read more

Why Clearer Insurance Communication Matters for Employers

26 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

ASIC’s latest scrutiny of insurance in superannuation communications is a timely reminder that life cover is only valuable when people understand when it applies, what it pays, and where the gaps may sit. For employers, CFOs and HR leaders, this is not just a superannuation fund issue. It goes directly to workforce wellbeing, benefit design and the way organisations explain financial protection to their people. - read more

What Stronger Insurer Results Mean for Tradies at Renewal Time

26 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

APRA’s latest general insurance statistics point to a sector that is in a stronger financial position than it was during the worst of recent inflation, repair-cost and catastrophe pressures. For Australian tradies, that sounds positive at first glance: a well-capitalised insurance market is better placed to pay claims, support recovery after major loss events and keep products available across higher-risk occupations and regions. - read more

What Simpler Advice Rules May Mean for Life Insurance

26 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

The latest stage of Australia’s financial advice reform debate has direct implications for life insurance, particularly for people who hold cover through superannuation or have avoided seeking advice because of cost and complexity. The policy direction is aimed at making limited, practical guidance easier to access, including through super funds and financial institutions, while still maintaining consumer protections. - read more

Click for more Insurance News