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 steadier insurer results still call for a cover review

08 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

APRA’s latest general insurance data suggests the Australian insurance sector is operating on a steadier footing, with industry results supported by firmer underwriting discipline, investment returns and ongoing attention to capital strength. For consultants, that is broadly positive news: a healthier insurance market can help maintain capacity and give buyers more room to discuss cover options at renewal. - read more

Falls From Height Are Back in Focus for Construction Risk

08 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

Renewed regulatory and industry attention on falls from height is a timely warning for Australian builders, subcontractors and project managers. While falls are usually discussed as a work health and safety issue first, they also sit squarely inside the insurance conversation because a serious incident can trigger workers compensation claims, public liability exposure, contractual disputes, investigation costs and reputational damage. - read more

Why Strong Insurer Results May Not Ease Freelance Premiums

08 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent general insurance results point to a sector that is in better financial shape than it was during the most intense period of claims inflation, severe weather losses and investment market volatility. Industry reporting on APRA data indicates that premium increases, stronger investment returns and more disciplined underwriting have helped Australian insurers rebuild margins, even as natural hazard risk and repair costs remain persistent pressure points. - read more

What New Safety Guidance Means for Personal Trainers

08 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent fitness sector guidance has again put safe service delivery in the spotlight for personal trainers, particularly as more Australians mix gym-based sessions with outdoor training, small-group classes, online coaching and higher-intensity programmes. The message for exercise professionals is practical rather than alarmist: when client needs are more varied, the systems behind each session matter just as much as the workout itself. - read more

New Operational Risk Expectations Put Insurer Reliability in Focus

08 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

APRA’s operational risk standard, CPS 230, has shifted from a regulatory project into a practical benchmark for banks, insurers and superannuation trustees. For insurance customers, the change is not just about compliance language. It goes to whether an insurer can keep essential services running when technology fails, a supplier breaks down, a cyber incident occurs or a major weather event drives a surge in claims. - read more

Click for more Insurance News