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 the New NSW Disclosure Rules Mean for Strata Cover

09 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

The latest phase of New South Wales strata reform has brought strata insurance disclosure back into practical focus, moving the issue from policy debate to renewal-season reality for owners corporations. The changes are designed to make it clearer when a strata managing agent, broker, insurer or related party receives a commission, fee or other financial benefit connected with arranging insurance. - read more

What a Steadier Life Insurance Market Means for Employers

09 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

Fresh life insurance performance data from APRA points to a market that is steadier than the disrupted conditions seen in recent years, but not one where employers can afford to be passive. For CFOs, HR leaders and directors, the message is less about a single quarterly result and more about the operating environment behind corporate life insurance pricing, claims service and product design. - read more

Why NSW Levy Reform Matters for Trade Businesses

09 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

A fresh push to reform how NSW funds emergency services has put insurance affordability back in the spotlight, especially for small businesses that already feel every increase at renewal time. The issue centres on the Emergency Services Levy, which is applied through many insurance policies and has long been criticised by parts of the insurance sector as a disincentive to maintaining adequate cover. - read more

New APRA rules put insurer systems under the spotlight

09 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

Australia’s tougher operational risk regime is sharpening the focus on how life insurers manage the systems, partners and processes that sit behind every policy. APRA’s CPS 230 standard requires regulated insurers to identify critical operations, set clear disruption tolerances and strengthen oversight of material service providers. For customers, this is not just a back-office compliance story. - read more

Why Claims Handling Scrutiny Matters for Business Owners

09 Sep 2026: Paige Estritori

Fresh compliance attention on life insurance claims handling is a timely reminder that cover is only valuable if it can respond clearly and efficiently when a business is under pressure. Recent industry monitoring has again highlighted familiar issues for life insurers, including claim delays, communication gaps, repeated evidence requests and the need for more consistent support where customers are vulnerable or dealing with complex medical events. - read more

Click for more Insurance News