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 Work Commission Enforces Fuel Cost Recovery Measures for Transport Operators

01 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has implemented a mandatory fuel cost recovery order, effective from 21 April 2026, to address the escalating fuel expenses burdening Australia's transport sector. This directive mandates that all parties within the road transport contract chain adjust their rates fortnightly or bi-monthly, ensuring that transport operators can recuperate the increased fuel costs incurred since 6 March 2026. - read more

Trucking Industry Seeks Immediate Support to Mitigate Fuel Price Impact

01 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

The Australian trucking industry is facing unprecedented challenges as soaring fuel prices threaten the viability of many transport operators. Industry leaders are urgently calling for financial relief measures to prevent widespread business closures and maintain the integrity of the nation's supply chain. - read more

Regulatory Bodies Advocate for TPD Insurance Reforms Amid Mental Health Claim Surge

01 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

In a recent joint CEO roundtable, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) highlighted pressing concerns regarding Total and Permanent Disability (TPD) insurance. The discussion centered on the escalating frequency and complexity of mental health-related claims, which are exerting significant pressure on both insurers and policyholders. - read more

Analyzing the 2026-27 Federal Budget's Impact on Australia's Insurance Industry

01 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

The 2026-27 Federal Budget, presented by Treasurer Jim Chalmers, introduces several measures with direct implications for Australia's insurance sector. Notably, the budget addresses concerns related to property insurance costs and the issue of underinsurance, both of which are critical for tradespeople and small business owners. - read more

Click for more Insurance News