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

Vero’s New Strata Product Signals a Shift in Cover Placement

27 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

Vero has entered the residential strata market with a new nil-commission product, initially launching in Far North Queensland and Darwin before a planned national rollout. The move is significant for owners corporations, strata committees and managers because these northern regions are among the most challenging areas in which to secure affordable and suitable building cover. - read more

What Delta’s Digital Insurance Launch Means for Small Operators

27 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

Delta Insurance’s move onto Ebix Australia’s Sunrise Exchange is more than a technology update. For Australian small businesses, including domestic and home service operators, it points to a broader shift in how specialist insurance products are being accessed, compared and placed through the broker market. - read more

What Broker Growth Means for Personal Trainer Insurance

27 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

New industry research has underlined just how central brokers have become to Australia’s general insurance market, with broker-placed business accounting for $35.6 billion in gross written premiums in the year to 30 June 2025. That represents about 46% of all general insurance written in Australia, within a total market of $77.9 billion. - read more

NEOS Underwriting Upgrade Points to Faster Cover Decisions

27 Jun 2026: Paige Estritori

NEOS has moved further into digital underwriting with the implementation of UnderwriteMe’s Decision Studio, a technology designed to improve how medical data is captured and assessed across its life insurance products. The development, announced in late June, reflects a broader shift in the Australian life insurance market: insurers are looking for faster, more consistent ways to assess applications without losing sight of fairness, accuracy and customer experience. - read more

Click for more Insurance News