Insurance Claim Rejected After Flight Crew Timing Violation

3

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
Source: Paige Estritori

Please Note: If this information affects you, seek advice from a licensed professional.

Share this news item:

Insurance News

Clear

Allianz Australia Penalised for Misleading Travel Insurance Information

15 Jan 2026: Paige Estritori

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of New South Wales has imposed fines totaling $16.8 million on Allianz Australia Insurance and its subsidiary, AWP Australia, for disseminating misleading information about their travel insurance products between 2016 and 2018. This decision underscores the critical importance of transparency and accuracy in the insurance sector. - read more

Surge in Medical Claims Among Australian Travellers Highlights Importance of Comprehensive Insurance

15 Jan 2026: Paige Estritori

In 2024, medical incidents emerged as the leading cause of travel insurance claims among Australian travellers, accounting for more than 40% of all claims handled by nib Travel. This trend underscores the critical importance of securing comprehensive travel insurance to mitigate the financial risks associated with medical emergencies abroad. - read more

Seafood Business Wins Insurance Dispute Over Storm-Induced Power Outage

15 Jan 2026: Paige Estritori

A recent ruling by the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) has significant implications for businesses seeking insurance compensation for losses due to power outages caused by natural disasters. In this case, a seafood distribution company experienced substantial stock losses when a storm-induced power outage left its refrigeration systems inoperable for a week. The insurer initially denied the claim, citing a flood exclusion clause. - read more

Insurance Council Advocates for Liability Law Overhaul to Curb Rising Premiums

15 Jan 2026: Paige Estritori

The Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) has called for urgent reforms to civil liability laws to address the escalating costs of liability insurance premiums affecting businesses nationwide. In a recently released white paper, the ICA highlights the need to review state-based civil liability laws that have remained unchanged for nearly 25 years. The report identifies key areas requiring attention, including psychological injuries, worker-to-worker claims, and leisure and recreational risks. - read more

Click for more Insurance News