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

NHVR Prohibition Notice Puts Fleet Systems Under the Insurance Microscope

12 Nov 2026: Paige Estritori

A fresh National Heavy Vehicle Regulator action against a heavy vehicle operator is a timely reminder that insurance risk is not limited to what happens at the moment of a crash. The NHVR announced on 30 October 2026 that it had issued a prohibition notice after identifying significant and ongoing safety risks, including repeated defects in safety-critical systems and concerns about the operator’s management controls. - read more

Diagnosis timing is not the only test for income cover

12 Nov 2026: Paige Estritori

A recent income protection dispute has put fresh attention on a difficult but important issue for Australian workers: a medical condition may be treated as pre-existing even where a formal diagnosis comes later. The case, reported on 9 November 2026, involved a prostate cancer claim that was declined after the Australian Financial Complaints Authority accepted that earlier medical warning signs and specialist investigations were enough to trigger a pre-existing condition exclusion. - read more

Fuel Recovery Order Restarts, Raising Insurance Budget Questions

12 Nov 2026: Paige Estritori

The Fair Work Commission’s varied fuel cost recovery order will restart obligations from 23 November 2026, requiring covered road transport contractual chains to account for higher fuel costs against the 6 March 2026 benchmark. For truck operators, the immediate issue is contract pricing, but the insurance angle is also important: cash flow, route choices, subcontracting arrangements and vehicle utilisation all influence how risk is presented and managed. - read more

Court Ruling Highlights Why TPD Wording Matters for Business Owners

12 Nov 2026: Paige Estritori

A Queensland Court of Appeal decision involving AIA Australia has put renewed attention on how technical policy conditions can affect total and permanent disability claims, and why business owners should not treat insurance wording as a background detail. The case concerned group TPD cover held through superannuation, but its broader message is relevant to SMEs that rely on life, TPD and disability-style cover to protect debt, ownership arrangements and business continuity. - read more

Latest Claims Data Shows Why Policy Structure Still Matters

12 Nov 2026: Paige Estritori

APRA’s latest life insurance claims and disputes statistics, released on 16 October 2026 and covering the 12 months to 30 June 2026, provide a useful reminder for Australian businesses: the practical value of cover often depends on how clearly it is structured, documented and understood before a claim ever arises. - read more

Click for more Insurance News