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 a Major Quad Bike Fine Means for Farm Risk

03 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

A recent quad bike fatality case in New South Wales has put farm safety, workplace liability and risk management back under close attention. ABC Rural reported on 2 July 2026 that Wumbulgal Agriculture Pty Ltd was fined $555,000 after an 82-year-old worker died in a quad bike accident at Yenda in the Riverina in February 2023. The company was found to have breached work health and safety obligations. - read more

What DVA’s 2027 Allied Health Changes Mean for Provider Risk

03 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

The Department of Veterans’ Affairs has confirmed a significant change to the way allied health care for eligible veterans will be funded from 1 July 2027. The reform combines higher provider fees with the removal of the current treatment cycle and the introduction of a $5,000 annual allied health expenditure threshold for review of clinical effectiveness. - read more

Draft Insurance Code Puts Claims Standards Back in Focus

03 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

The Insurance Council of Australia has opened public consultation on a redrafted General Insurance Code of Practice, with feedback invited from 24 June 2026 until 21 July 2026. For fitness professionals, this is more than an insurance-sector process. It is a timely reminder that the value of a policy is tested not only by the premium, but by what happens when a claim, complaint or vulnerable customer situation arises. - read more

APRA’s Cyber Data Shift: What Consultants Should Watch

03 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

APRA’s latest move on insurance data may sound technical, but it has practical implications for Australian consultants reviewing their risk programmes. The regulator has confirmed it will separately publish cyber insurance and management liability data within the National Claims and Policies Database, rather than leaving those lines blended into broader liability categories. - read more

Click for more Insurance News