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

A new life insurance discount puts long-term value in focus

14 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

Partners Life has introduced a new Life Advantage discount, giving eligible customers a permanent reduction on selected life and trauma-related covers. The offer is aimed at non-smokers aged 16 and over who meet a specified body mass index range and complete full medical underwriting when applying for new or increased cover. - read more

Why insurer technology resilience matters when you need to claim

14 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

A new regulatory focus on insurer operational resilience is a timely reminder that an income insurance policy is only as reassuring as the systems behind it. The Financial Markets Authority review, reported by Insurance Business in July 2026, found that many New Zealand insurers are still relying on ageing technology for core operations, while also managing significant outsourcing and cyber-security pressures. - read more

Why Delayed Life Milestones Are Changing Income Protection Decisions

14 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

New Zealand’s life and health insurance market is facing a quiet but important shift: younger adults are not necessarily rejecting protection, but many are postponing the life events that usually trigger it. Recent industry reporting, drawing on Deloitte and Financial Services Council research, shows Gen Z and millennial New Zealanders are delaying major decisions such as buying a home, starting a family, changing careers or launching a business because of financial pressure. - read more

Why Delayed Life Milestones Could Widen New Zealand’s Income Protection Gap

11 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

New Zealand’s younger workers are reshaping the traditional path into insurance. Fresh industry reporting, drawing on Deloitte’s 2026 Gen Z and Millennial Survey and Financial Services Council research, points to a clear shift: many Gen Z and millennial New Zealanders are delaying major life decisions because of financial pressure. Home ownership, starting a family and career changes have long been moments when people reassess life, mortgage and income protection cover. - read more

Why the FMA’s conduct focus matters for life insurance buyers

11 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

New Zealand’s financial advice sector is heading into a more targeted year of scrutiny after the Financial Markets Authority’s latest conduct priorities highlighted fraud, adviser commissions and complaints handling as areas of concern for 2026/27. For households arranging life, trauma, income protection or health-related cover, the message is practical: the quality of advice, disclosure and record keeping matters just as much as the premium on the page. - read more

Click for more Insurance News