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

Why Tradies Should Check Injury Cover Wording

14 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

A recent Australian Financial Complaints Authority decision has put a sharp spotlight on a point many self-employed workers can easily overlook: the difference between being unable to work and being covered under the exact wording of an insurance policy. - read more

Longer Lives, Longer Illnesses: What It Means for Cover

14 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

New research from Zurich has put a fresh spotlight on a challenge many Australian households already feel in practical terms: living longer does not always mean living healthier. Its Chronic Care Index places Australia highly among OECD countries for overall health system performance, helped by strong healthcare capacity and relatively low mortality. But the same research points to a widening gap between lifespan and healthspan, with more people spending extended periods managing chronic illness. - read more

Volunteer H5 Training Sharpens Australia’s Biosecurity Watch

14 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

South Australia’s decision to train conservation volunteers in H5 bird flu detection marks a practical new phase in Australia’s biosecurity response. Rather than relying only on government officers and laboratory testing, the program aims to use experienced birdwatchers and conservation volunteers as an extra set of eyes across wetlands, coastlines and bird habitats. - read more

What the Steadfast takeover bid could mean for SMEs

14 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

A major ownership shake-up may be coming for one of the most influential names in Australian commercial insurance distribution, after global investment firm KKR joined the consortium pursuing Steadfast Group. The proposal, valued at about $7.7 billion, remains non-binding and is still subject to due diligence and further agreement, but it is significant because Steadfast sits behind a large network of insurance brokerages and underwriting agencies used by many Australian businesses. - read more

What a Renewed Flood Pool Debate Means for Retail Cover

14 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

Australia’s flood insurance debate has returned to the foreground, with fresh attention on whether the existing Cyclone Reinsurance Pool should remain narrowly focused or whether a separate approach is needed for broader flood risk. For shop owners, the issue is more than a policy argument between governments and insurers. It goes directly to whether flood-prone businesses can obtain cover at a workable price, and whether current policies respond in the way owners expect when water damage disrupts trading. - read more

Click for more Insurance News