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 Pre-Existing Medical Conditions Need Extra Attention Before You Travel

28 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

Australian travellers with pre-existing medical conditions have been given a timely reminder to look beyond price when arranging travel insurance, with recently updated consumer guidance placing renewed emphasis on disclosure, medical assessments and policy wording. - read more

What Delta’s Digital Insurance Move Means for Real Estate Agencies

28 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

Delta Insurance’s move onto Ebix Australia’s Sunrise Exchange is a useful signal for real estate agencies watching how business insurance is being distributed. The underwriting agency has made its cyber and management liability products available through the platform for the first time, using Entsia technology and an accelerated accreditation pathway. Further products are expected to follow, which points to continuing momentum behind digital placement for financial lines cover. - read more

What a Failed Fridge Claim Means for Restaurant Insurance

28 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

A recent insurance dispute involving a faulty vaccine fridge has a useful warning for Australian restaurant and café owners: a broken fridge is not always enough to secure a payout. In the case, reported on 26 June 2026, a business policyholder argued that a refrigeration unit had moved outside the required temperature range and could not be restored through resets. The owner believed an internal control component had failed and sought cover under an equipment failure section of the policy. - read more

Vero’s No-Commission Strata Launch Adds Fresh Pressure to a Changing Market

28 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

Vero has entered the residential strata market with a nil-commission product aimed at addressing some of the placement challenges facing owners corporations, particularly in higher-risk regions. The product will initially be available through intermediaries in Far North Queensland and Darwin, with a broader national rollout planned in stages. - read more

Click for more Insurance News