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

What the Latest Truck Crash Findings Mean for Your Cover

30 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

Fresh heavy vehicle crash research from transport insurer NTI has again put a spotlight on the practical causes of serious truck incidents, with speed for the conditions, fatigue, distraction, equipment issues and vehicle fires all remaining central risk themes for Australian operators. For truck owners, fleet managers and owner-drivers, the findings are more than a safety update. They are a reminder that risk management and insurance outcomes are closely connected. - read more

Why truck fire risk deserves a closer insurance review

29 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

A fresh round of transport safety coverage has put truck fires back on the risk agenda for Australian operators. While major crashes often attract the most attention, a vehicle fire can be just as disruptive for a business: the truck may be written off, the load may be damaged, a route may be blocked and the operator may lose income while replacement equipment is sourced. - read more

Insurance Complaint Trends Put Claims Preparation Back in Focus

29 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

Fresh industry attention on Australian Financial Complaints Authority complaint trends is a timely reminder that insurance value is not only tested when a policy is bought. For trade businesses, the real test often comes when a damaged tool trailer, public liability allegation, stolen equipment claim or storm-affected worksite needs to be resolved quickly so the next job can proceed. - read more

What a More Stable Income Protection Market Means for Your Pay Packet

29 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent APRA life insurance performance data has given the income protection sector a cautiously positive signal: the market appears to be moving through a more stable phase after several years of product redesign, pricing pressure and closer regulatory attention. For consumers, the important point is not that cover has suddenly become simple, but that insurer sustainability and claim reliability remain central to the value of any policy. - read more

New APRA Data Reinforces the Need to Review Income Protection Cover

29 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

APRA’s latest life insurance performance data has put income protection back under the spotlight, with disability income products continuing to be one of the more closely watched areas of the sector. While the broader life insurance industry has been showing signs of improved stability, the update reinforces that policies designed to replace income after illness or injury remain sensitive to claims experience, pricing, and changing work and health trends. - read more

Click for more Insurance News