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

New Strata Broking Findings Raise the Bar for Trust

06 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

Fresh findings from the Insurance Brokers Code Compliance Committee have added another layer to Australia’s continuing strata insurance transparency debate. The committee’s review of strata broker-agent arrangements examined seven brokers collectively connected to one thousand and eighty-eight strata representatives, and resulted in nine formal breach determinations. Two brokers were also referred to ASIC for consideration of conflict management issues. - read more

Why Micro-Rating Matters for Your Next Shop Insurance Renewal

06 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

Australia’s commercial insurance market is entering a more nuanced phase. While headline pricing indicators suggest conditions are easing for many business customers, a recent Insurance Business Australia report highlights a shift away from the old idea of one broad insurance cycle. Instead, pricing is increasingly being assessed by product line, geography, occupation, claims history and the quality of each risk submission. - read more

School Holiday Travel Highlights a New Test for Insurance Cover

05 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

Australia’s winter school holiday rush has put travel insurance back in the spotlight, with families heading to Bali, Fiji and Thailand, skiers travelling to New Zealand and domestic holidaymakers chasing either snow or sunshine closer to home. But this year’s peak period is unfolding against a more unsettled backdrop: geopolitical tension, airspace closures, airline disruption and a growing expectation that insurers should do more than reimburse costs after the event. - read more

Strata Insurance Breaches Put Transparency Back in the Spotlight

05 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

The latest scrutiny of strata insurance arrangements is a timely reminder that insurance governance is no longer a back-office issue for property professionals. On 30 June 2026, the Insurance Brokers Code Compliance Committee released findings from a review of broker-agent arrangements in strata insurance. The review examined seven brokers with 1,088 strata representatives and identified weaknesses across representative agreements, remuneration disclosure, conflict management and oversight of conduct. - read more

Why Insurance Pricing Is Becoming More Client-Specific

05 Jul 2026: Paige Estritori

Australia’s commercial insurance market may be softening on the surface, but the latest industry commentary suggests small businesses should be cautious about assuming every policy will automatically become cheaper. The emerging message is that the old idea of a single hard or soft insurance market is giving way to a more targeted pricing environment, where insurers assess each line of cover, occupation, location and claims history in much greater detail. - read more

Click for more Insurance News