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

Tool Theft Claim Falls Short After Portable Items Limit Applied

28 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

A recent Australian Financial Complaints Authority decision is a timely reminder for tradies that the words in a policy schedule can matter just as much as the headline sum insured. The dispute involved a business that had tools and a trailer stolen from a worksite, then challenged the insurer’s payout after receiving far less than it believed the policy should provide. - read more

HCF Life Appeal Decision Puts Policy Wording Back in Focus

28 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

A recent Full Federal Court decision involving HCF Life has put renewed attention on one of the most important parts of any life insurance policy: how pre-existing conditions are described, limited and explained to customers. - read more

Cyclone Insurance Savings Offer Relief, But Farmers Still Face a Hard Market

28 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

The ACCC’s final monitoring report on the Australian Government’s cyclone reinsurance pool offers a cautiously positive signal for parts of northern Australia. Premium relief is showing up in higher cyclone-risk areas, particularly for home, strata and small business policies. For farming families and rural enterprises in exposed regions, that matters: the family home, workers’ accommodation, sheds, workshops and business premises can all sit within the same weather-risk landscape. - read more

New Liability Cover Adds Choice for Australian SMEs

28 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

Haven Underwriting has expanded its product suite with a new broadform liability offering, adding another option for Australian businesses that rely on customer-facing premises, physical locations and day-to-day public interaction. The cover is backed by Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance capacity and follows Haven’s earlier entry into the market with industrial special risk property cover. - read more

Click for more Insurance News