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

Softer Professional Indemnity Pricing Creates a Timely Cover Check

14 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

Fresh July 2026 market commentary suggests Australian professional indemnity conditions have moved further into a buyer-friendly phase, with stronger insurer competition and available capital placing downward pressure on premiums. For consultants, advisers, accountants, IT providers, designers, engineers and other service-based businesses, this may create a useful renewal window. However, the key message is not simply that cover may be cheaper. It is that businesses should use the softer market to improve protection before conditions change again. - read more

What a Personal Accident Claim Ruling Means for Real Estate Professionals

14 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

A recent Australian Financial Complaints Authority decision is a timely reminder that a stressful or threatening incident does not automatically trigger every personal accident policy. The dispute involved a ride-share driver who experienced significant psychological symptoms after being spat on and verbally abused by a passenger. Although medical evidence indicated the incident worsened previously stable mental health conditions and affected his capacity to work, the insurer declined the claim because the policy responded to bodily injury. - read more

Bali Theft Warnings Highlight a Bigger Travel Insurance Question

14 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

Recent reports of phone and jewellery snatch-thefts in popular Bali tourist areas have put personal belongings back in the travel insurance spotlight. For Australians heading to Indonesia, the issue is not simply whether a stolen phone can be claimed. It is whether the policy they choose properly matches the risks they are most likely to face while away. - read more

New Small Business Insurance Education Push Highlights Underinsurance Risk

14 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

A new alliance between the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Zest Insurance is putting small business underinsurance back in the spotlight, with education, practical tools and risk resources to be delivered through the Chamber’s THRIVE program. - read more

Click for more Insurance News