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

What Rising Insurance Disputes Mean for Income Protection Customers

29 Oct 2026: Paige Estritori

New Zealand’s latest insurance dispute figures are a timely warning for anyone relying on personal cover to protect their household income. The Insurance & Financial Services Ombudsman Scheme reported that, for the year ended 30 June 2026, health insurance became the largest category of disputes it investigated for the first time, with health disputes up 91 percent and 833 dispute investigations completed across all categories. - read more

Crash Data Shows Where Truck Risk Is Shifting

29 Oct 2026: Paige Estritori

The 2026 National Truck Accident Research Centre major incident report gives Australian truck operators a useful, if challenging, snapshot of where serious heavy vehicle risk is changing. Released in October 2026 and based on de-identified NTI-insured heavy vehicle major-loss claims, the report points to progress on distraction and fatigue, while also highlighting renewed concern about inappropriate speed and following distance. - read more

Delayed Small Business Insurance Inquiry Keeps Cover Concerns on the Agenda

29 Oct 2026: Paige Estritori

A federal parliamentary inquiry into small business insurance has pushed back its reporting timetable, extending the wait for recommendations on insurance affordability, availability and regulation. Insurance News reported on 27 October 2026 that the inquiry, which had been expected to report that day, now intends to table its final report by 26 February 2027 after receiving extensive evidence from across the market. - read more

What the Insurance Code Rewrite Means for Shop Claims

29 Oct 2026: Paige Estritori

Australia’s proposed overhaul of the General Insurance Code of Practice has moved from consultation to regulator review, with the Insurance Council of Australia lodging a strengthened code with ASIC on 22 October 2026. For shop owners, this is not an instant change to policy terms, but it is a significant development in how insurers may be expected to handle claims, complaints, vulnerability and customer communication in the next phase of the market. - read more

Why the SME Cyber Insurance Gap Is Becoming Harder to Ignore

29 Oct 2026: Paige Estritori

New research from specialist insurer CFC, reported on 26 October 2026, has put a sharper number on a problem many Australian small businesses already sense: cyber risk is moving faster than insurance take-up. CFC’s local findings indicate seven in 10 Australian SMEs surveyed experienced a cyber incident in the past three years, while standalone cyber policy uptake is still estimated at only 10% to 15%. - read more

Click for more Insurance News