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 roadworthiness checks are an insurance issue for truck operators

20 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent transport industry coverage has again highlighted regulator attention on heavy vehicle roadworthiness, with roadside checks, defect management and maintenance systems remaining central safety themes for Australian operators. For trucking businesses, the message is not limited to avoiding fines or delays. Roadworthiness can also influence how insurers view risk, how smoothly a claim progresses and whether policy conditions have been met after an incident. - read more

Silica Safety Scrutiny Raises Fresh Cover Questions for Tradies

20 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

Australia’s engineered stone ban and continuing regulator focus on silica exposure are more than a workplace safety issue for builders, renovators, tilers, stonemasons, plumbers, electricians and demolition contractors. They also create a practical insurance checkpoint for any trade business that cuts, drills, grinds, removes or works around dust-generating materials. - read more

Rising Repair Costs Put Fresh Pressure on Truck Operators

20 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

Fresh motor insurance commentary across the Australian market is again pointing to a practical issue truck operators know well: repairing vehicles is becoming more complex, more expensive and, in some cases, slower. For heavy vehicle businesses, this is not just a workshop problem. It can influence claim outcomes, renewal pricing, excess settings and the amount of time a truck is off the road after an incident. - read more

Why Claims Disputes Should Prompt a Farm Insurance Review

19 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent complaints data from the Australian Financial Complaints Authority has again highlighted a pressure point that matters to rural Australia: insurance claims can become difficult when expectations, policy wording and evidence do not line up. While the figures cover the wider insurance market rather than farms alone, the themes are highly relevant for agricultural businesses dealing with storm damage, fire losses, machinery failures, fencing repairs or interrupted operations. - read more

Compensation Rules Put Professional Indemnity Cover Back in Focus

19 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

Fresh industry attention on ASIC's expectations for compensation arrangements is a timely reminder that professional indemnity insurance should not be treated as a once-a-year renewal task. For Australian professionals who provide advice, compliance support, financial services, consulting, design, technology or outsourced business services, the adequacy of cover depends on how closely the policy matches the work actually being performed. - read more

Click for more Insurance News