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

Fair conduct focus puts income cover quality back on the agenda

04 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent industry coverage of New Zealand’s financial conduct settings is a timely reminder that insurance is not just about having a policy document in place. The wider conduct regime for financial institutions has shifted attention from one-off sales processes to the ongoing treatment of customers, including whether products are suitable, clearly explained and supported when people need help. - read more

What Insurance Contract Reform Means for Income Protection Customers

04 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

New Zealand’s long-running insurance contract law reform is shifting from a technical legal issue into something everyday policyholders need to understand. The Contracts of Insurance Act modernises rules that have sat behind insurance policies for generations, including how customers disclose information, how insurers respond to non-disclosure, and how certain policy terms are treated. - read more

What NSW Emergency Services Levy Reform Could Mean for Strata Communities

01 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

New South Wales strata communities should keep a close watch on renewed efforts to reform the way emergency services are funded through insurance premiums. The long-running concern is that adding emergency services charges to insurance bills can make cover look more expensive, particularly for apartment buildings, mixed-use schemes and larger owners corporations already managing high rebuilding values and complex risk profiles. - read more

Insurance Complaints Put Claims Preparation Back in Focus

01 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority’s latest reporting has again highlighted insurance as a major source of disputes, with claim delays, communication breakdowns and disagreements over policy outcomes remaining common pressure points. For domestic and home service businesses, the message is practical: the strength of a policy is often tested not when it is bought, but when a claim is made. - read more

What Storm Claims Teach Freelancers About Cover

01 Aug 2026: Paige Estritori

The insurance fallout from Ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred is a timely reminder that severe weather is not just a household issue. For Australian freelancers, consultants and sole traders, a storm can interrupt work, damage essential equipment, delay client delivery and expose gaps in cover that only become obvious at claim time. - read more

Click for more Insurance News