Insurance Claim Rejected After Flight Crew Timing Violation

3

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
Source: Paige Estritori

Share this news item:

Insurance News

Broker Sentenced for Fraudulent Builders’ Insurance Scheme 15 Jan 2025: Paige Estritori In a significant legal crackdown, a broker has been sentenced for his involvement in selling fraudulent builders’ warranty insurance to construction firms in New South Wales. This case underscores the urgent need for regulatory vigilance in the insurance sector. - read more

LA Wildfires Set to Shatter Insurance Loss Records 14 Jan 2025: Paige Estritori Recent wildfires in Los Angeles are projected to lead to unprecedented insured losses, potentially exceeding $20 billion USD (approximately $33 billion AUD). This alarming situation underscores the escalating risks associated with natural disasters, as communities brace for the fallout from this catastrophic event. - read more

Catastrophe Bonds: The Future of Cyber Risk Management 07 Jan 2025: Paige Estritori As digital threats escalate, the financial sector is looking at innovative methods to enhance cyber risk management, with catastrophe bonds emerging as a pivotal tool. The Geneva Association emphasizes the necessity of alternative risk transfer solutions to mitigate the burgeoning cyber protection gap. - read more

Insured Value Disputes: A Closer Look at Claims Resolution 06 Jan 2025: Paige Estritori A recent case has sparked significant discussion around the complexities of insurance claims, focusing specifically on the insured value of personal items like jewelry. A claimant who had a gold necklace insured for $31,500 found himself at odds with his insurer, QBE, after reporting the item's loss. - read more