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

PSC Move Signals Stronger Competition in Transport Insurance Broking

07 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

PSC Insurance Brokers’ investment in MA Insurance Brokers is a timely reminder that specialist transport insurance advice is becoming increasingly valuable in a tighter, more complex market. The deal, announced in late June 2026, sees MA begin operating as PSC Transport Insurance Brokers, while founders Barry Mathison and Mariann Illyes retain an equity stake and continue leading the business as managing principals. - read more

QBE’s Trade Pack Change Puts Renewals in Focus for Tradies

07 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

QBE’s decision to stop offering its standalone office and trade pack products from July 2026 is a timely reminder for Australian tradies to treat every renewal as more than a simple rollover. The insurer is moving customers towards a standard business cover structure, with existing trade pack policyholders expected to be offered the replacement product at renewal from October 2026. - read more

Road User Charging Reform: What It Could Mean for Truck Operators

06 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

Road user charging is moving from policy theory to a more serious industry conversation, with a new ITS Australia survey pointing to growing support for replacing fuel excise with a distance-based funding model. For transport operators, this is not just a tax discussion. It could change how fleets calculate running costs, compare vehicle types and plan margins on long-term freight contracts. - read more

Stolen Tools Ruling Shows Why Policy Limits Matter

06 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

A recent Australian Financial Complaints Authority decision is a timely warning for trade businesses that rely on tools, trailers and mobile equipment every day. The dispute centred on a business that had tools and a trailer stolen from a worksite, then challenged the insurer’s payout after discovering the claim was limited by the portable items section of the policy. - read more

Adviser Levy Pressure Puts PI Reform Back in Focus

06 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

The Financial Advice Association Australia has renewed pressure on the Federal Government to limit Compensation Scheme of Last Resort costs for financial advisers, arguing the profession should not carry more than $20 million in total levy exposure while adviser numbers remain under strain. - read more

Click for more Insurance News