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

APRA Enforces Additional Capital Requirement on Sovereign Insurance Australia

13 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has imposed an additional $2 million capital requirement on Sovereign Insurance Australia (SIA), citing significant deficiencies in the insurer's risk management framework and regulatory reporting practices. This action underscores the critical importance of robust risk management within the insurance industry. - read more

Soft Market Conditions Persist in Australian Commercial Insurance Through H1 2026

13 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

The Australian commercial insurance market has maintained its soft stance throughout the first half of 2026, presenting advantageous conditions for buyers. This trend is characterized by stable or declining premiums, expanded insurer capacity, and increased competition across various insurance lines. - read more

2026-27 Federal Budget: Key Impacts on the Australian Insurance Industry

13 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

The Australian Government's 2026-27 Federal Budget, presented by Treasurer Jim Chalmers, introduces several measures with direct implications for the insurance sector. These initiatives aim to address challenges such as property insurance costs and underinsurance, while certain omissions have raised questions within the industry. - read more

NRMA's Departure from Farm Insurance: What It Means for Australian Farmers

12 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

In a significant shift within the Australian insurance landscape, NRMA has announced its withdrawal from the farm insurance market, ceasing the sale of new policies as of July 1, 2025. This decision affects both hobby and commercial farm insurance policies, leaving many farmers in search of alternative coverage options. - read more

Achmea and Protected Cropping Australia Join Forces to Support Greenhouse Farmers

12 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

Achmea Farm Insurance and Protected Cropping Australia (PCA) have announced a strategic partnership aimed at bolstering risk mitigation and resilience within Australia's protected cropping sector. This collaboration seeks to empower greenhouse and glasshouse growers by providing tailored insurance solutions and fostering knowledge exchange on best practices. - read more

Click for more Insurance News